Injustice (2021 Animated Movie)

I loved the Injustice video games and the comics. The problem was, you needed to read/play both to get the full story. After the opening scene, the game jumps forward five years to a time when Superman is already in power. The comic fills in those missing years.

A quick summary for those not in the know: The Joker gives Superman a Very Bad Day. Superman is so traumatized that he loses his grip on morality and adopts a heavier stance on crime. The more people resist him, the more he doubles down. His views escalate until he is a full blown dictator.

The comics start out great, but some of the later years start to drag. The first year is especially quotable, with some of the best lines in the history of comics. The video game is a fun, solid fighting game with a well done story mode. The graphics are a bit dated at this point, but it often goes on sale for under $5. So if you haven’t played it, seriously, pick it up sometime.

With five years of comics and several hours of gameplay, it was hard to condense this story into a single animated movie, but I think they did a good job. The movie mostly draws from the comics, particularly the first year. In fact, I’d say that the first half of the movie is pulled straight from Year One. After that, it draws bits and pieces from the later years, smatters in a bit of the plot from the game, and throws in some original ideas as well. In other words, the climax is a little messy.

Now, here’s where I disagree with other reviewers. They complained that the movie wasn’t faithful enough to the source material. Actually, the first half is almost too faithful to Year One. Okay, there’s a few big changes. For example, one prominent hero is killed early on, probably just to avoid some plot holes. But I was quoting the comic as I watched the movie. My wife watched my lips moving. For the first half, I almost always knew what was about to happen. That’s pretty faithful.

The second half? Well, they did what they had to in order to tie things up. They could have made it an animated series instead of a movie, but I don’t think that was ever in the cards. Appreciate the movie for what it is, not what you feel is missing. I’m sorry your favorite scenes were cut, but suck it up and move on.

But on the flip side: Reviewers also praised the voice acting, and that’s the part I felt was a little weak. Okay, there was nothing wrong with who they cast for which voice. But again, I like the comics because they were so quotable. And when it came to the most memorable lines, the actors just didn’t quite deliver them the way I’d envisioned. They’re fine voice actors, but their comic timing was off, or they didn’t put the emphasis on the right words, or something. I know, follow my own advice and suck it up. But it irks me that they were so close to perfection.

They removed some plot elements that were only there to justify game mechanics. In the game, it was silly that Superman could go toe-to-toe with characters like Green Arrow without knocking their heads off in one blow. They explained this by inventing pills you could swallow that gave everyone the strength and durability of Superman. The movie thankfully removes this plot point. Seriously, the whole reason evil Superman is so scary is because he’s so powerful. Make everyone else just as tough, and the concept loses its teeth.

Also, the game involved characters from two universes, to explain why characters are able to fight each other. The movie does touch on the parallel universes idea, but not as heavily as the game. I won’t say more to avoid spoilers. But what it does with the idea, it does well, at least in my opinion.

Now, I know “Superman turns evil” stories have been done to death at this point. DC itself has put out stories like “Red Son” and “Crisis on Two Earths”, but the concept has inspired a lot of non-DC works as well, such as Invincible and Brightburn. But even though the idea is tired, Injustice is one of the best uses of the concept. And the Injustice animated movie is probably the most accessible way to see the story. It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely is worth a watch, especially if you haven’t read the comics or played the game.

Injustice is currently streaming on HBO Max.

Masters of the Universe: Revelations (Netflix)

I just binged the first five episodes of "Masters of the Universe: Revelations" on Netflix.  It's not bad.  

Background: I loved the He-Man cartoons when I was a kid in the 80s.  They weren't quite up there with the Holy Trinity (Star Wars, G.I. Joe, and Transformers), but I still watched the cartoons and owned a lot of the toys.  I haven't paid much attention to the franchise since the 80s, though.  I know there have been a few attempts at bringing it back, but nothing ever caught my eye.

The new series is a sequel to the 80s cartoon, and it even makes direct references to some of the specific classic episodes.  But it takes itself a lot more seriously.  That's a point of contention with me, honestly.  I mean, MotU has always been sort of silly.  With goofy characters like Clawful and Stinkor, I'm not sure it deserved a darker, more serious tone.  But it works, in its own way.

He-Man himself doesn't get much screen time, and the story is more focused on Teela.  So of course, it got review bombed by tons of misogynistic trolls.  Keep that in mind if you see it has a low rating somewhere - some of the ratings don't actually reflect the quality of the show, but rather the politics of the reviewers.

If you're reading this blog, then you probably know that I prefer female antagonists.  But it goes beyond that.  Even when I was a kid, I thought He-Man was the least interesting MotU character.  He was basically Conan with Superman's personality, and there just wasn't much to him.  I was a big Stratos fan myself, but I also had a thing for Trap-Jaw.  In fact, the show's focus on He-Man might be one of the reasons it never reached the aforementioned "Holy Trinity" status for me.

So downplaying the He-Man character was probably the most interesting thing the new MotU could have done.  It gave some of the other characters a chance to shine for a change.  To be fair, some of the review bombers complained that He-Man was prominent in the trailers, and accused it of false advertising.  It's a legitimate complaint, but they had to do it that way to make some of the twists more surprising in the show itself.

The voice cast is pretty good.  Mark Hamill's Skeletor kind of gives me an uncanny valley feeling, since it's sort of like the Joker but without the humorous edge.  I'm not crazy about Sarah Michelle Gellar as Teela, because it sounds like a weak character's voice coming out of a much stronger character.  It made sense for Gellar to play Buffy, because that show's concept was about a powerful fighter in the body of a waif.  But Teela's appearance and voice just don't really match up, IMO.

The art is pretty good.  Cartoons have come a long way since the 80s, and the animation is a lot smoother.  Some characters look better than others.  I love that Prince Adam actually looks different from He-Man this time; it's more believable that his disguise fools anyone.  Orko kind of creeps me out, with his mystical eyes and scrawny blue arms.  The only part I really don't like is the obvious CGI in places.  I thought cartoons had gotten better about that.

It throws in a lot of Easter eggs for long-time fans, including an entire episode set in "Preternia" - a prehistoric setting from a cancelled toy line, but now repurposed as the Eternian afterlife.  The series features several characters and vehicles that were relatively obscure in the original run.  In fact, in some ways it feels more like a toy commercial than the original series did, even if it's no longer easy to buy these toys.

The fifth episode ends on a very big cliffhanger, with a twist far gutsier than anything seen in the original cartoon.  I do hope they aren't too slow about posting the rest of the series.  I'm ready for more.

Invincible (Amazon Prime)

I just finished season one of Invincible.  Wow, that's some powerful stuff.  I went into this show without having read any of the comics, but some of the twists had already been spoiled for me.  There seems to be a certain genre of comics that exists only to subvert our expectations.  The problem is, edgy subversions are becoming so common, that "wholesome" is becoming the new edgy.

I think the real problem is that there's only so many plots (at least, only so many that readers find entertaining), but a seemingly unlimited number of writers.  Now that the internet can make anyone a writer (just sign over most of your profits to the Kindle store), we're seeing more copycat works than ever.  Amazon is bursting with books about vampire romance or wizarding schools.  It takes an amazing mind to come up with something truly original.

Unfortunately, Invincible isn't it.  The show is full of clever observations on the realities of super hero crime fighting, but they're not so clever that I hadn't seen these tropes before.  But at least it combines these tropes in an entertaining way.

When I first saw the trailer for Invincible, I thought, "great, another modern take on superheroes that uses graphic violence to be edgy."  But the actual show is pretty good about only using gore to make a point.  

Saving Private Ryan used violence to show the horrors of war.  The Passion of the Christ used violence to make Christ's pain seem more real, instead of the "fairy tale" quality most Biblical films have.  They weren't pandering to teenage slasher fans, they were serious movies that used violence to make serious points.

Invincible seems similar in its intentions, though it's going to appeal to the teenage edgelords as well.  When the title character enters his first mass battle against some alien invaders, he sees citizens getting blasted into pieces.  He ends up covered in blood and gore from those slain, and it rightly freaks him out.  He tries to save an elderly woman, but he ends up injuring her more in the process.  

The whole scene is there to show that being a superhero isn't as neat and clean as he thought.  Invincible (the character) had grown up reading comics and watching other heroes (including his father) fight bad guys on TV.  But that didn't prepare him for how real things would get when he became a hero himself.

When it's not making a point, the violence isn't any worse than an episode of Justice League.  The first episode's opening scene has a team of Justice League expys defending the White House from a pair of criminals.  Barely any blood is spilled, innocent lives are saved at the last minute, and on the whole it could have been a kid's cartoon.  The plot of the first episode rips a lot from Sky High, and it looks like the episode will end on a high note.  

And then, the subversion comes.  I'm not going to spoil it here, but when the tone changes, it really changes.  That said, I really wasn't surprised much.  The season had a few twists, none of which were really twisty.  Some of the so-called surprises were spoiled by memes, but they're also pretty well telegraphed in the show itself.  I mean, even my wife knows that a certain character is secretly evil, and she hasn't even watched a full trailer.

But that might be on purpose.  Maybe they want you to know certain twists going in, so you'll be even more surprised by later subversions of subversions in season two, I don't know yet.  All I can tell you is that while none of the show's tropes scream "original" to me, this combination of tropes is still pretty fresh.

I'm a little afraid to keep going, though.  It was written by Robert Kirkman, the same guy who wrote The Walking Dead.  I read the first 100 or so issues of TWD, and while it was pretty good, I don't like "anyone can die" style writers.  Kirkman's the kind of guy who will develop a character for 75 issues, then unceremoniously kill them off because he thinks it makes his penis look big.  

If I keep watching Invincible, sooner or later a character I like will die.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not so fragile that I can't handle the death of fictional characters.  But I still don't find it entertaining when a character I like is killed.

Do I recommend the show?  That's hard to say.  I'm not even sure why I like it.  But if you like superheroes, and graphic violence doesn't churn your stomach, then you could do a lot worse.  

Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix

I like to think I'm an RPG enthusiast, but I haven't played one in a very long time.  I just can't bring myself to start a 50+ hour game when I know I won't find time to finish it.  These days I'm more into games that don't require a commitment.  I'm a sucker for two things:  Button masher fighting games, and halfway decent kart racers.  

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of the latter.  Of course the best kart racer starts with an "M", and requires a Nintendo system to play.  For those of us who don't keep up with the latest Nintendo systems, it's hard to find a kart racer of similar quality.  Impossible, actually.  But until I break down and buy a Switch, I'm making do with what's out there.

You wouldn't think my needs are hard to meet.  All I want is to race vehicles while throwing objects at each other, and the physics need to "feel right".  But that's the hard part, apparently.  The people who design budget kart racers just don't put the same effort into the physics as the people who design NASCAR/Formula-1 racing simulators.  You end up with a lot of games where driving doesn't feel much different than walking in an action game.

But it gets worse.  For a kart racer to really stick with us, my wife and I have to agree on the feel.  We've been playing Beach Buggy Racing for a couple of years now, and we're really itching for something new.  (Shameless plug:  Subscribe to KJ's Twitch Channel where we play at least a couple of times a week.)  We tried Crash Team Racing a while back, but it didn't click for us.

Most recently we tried Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix.  It's not bad, but it's probably not going to replace Beach Buggy Racing in our household.  At least not yet.  

I never played the first Nickelodeon Kart Racers game, but all the reviews say it was terrible.  The recently-released sequel is considered a vast improvement, but it's still not getting stellar reviews.  

But here's the thing:  The biggest complaint I keep seeing in the reviews?  It rips off Mario Kart too much.  Seriously, why do reviewers assume that everyone already owns a Nintendo system?  I'm desperate for a Mario Kart rip-off.  For me, the plagiarism a feature, not a bug.  

NKR2 is a solid kart racer, despite what other reviewers are saying.  It has more than enough characters and tracks, it's colorful and fun, and you can tell a lot of love went into it.  It has unlockables galore, and every race gives you coins you can use to buy items, so it always feels like you're making progress.

The customization is pretty insane.  Before you race, you pick a driver, which also determines the shape of the car.  Then you pick three members of your pit crew, tires, engine, tailpipes, and paint job.  The first crew member determines your car's special weapon, and the other two crew members give you passive effects, like automatically getting a second item each time you pick up a power up.  There are a whopping 70 pit crew members to pick from, though most of them have to be unlocked.

It has a decent roster.  Not being ten years old, I was afraid that there wouldn't be enough characters I recognized.  However, its roster of 28 drivers spans several decades, including the Ninja Turtles, Ren & Stimpy, CatDog, Hey Arnold, The Last Airbender, Spongebob, Rugrats, and a few others.  Heck, the Ninja Turtles alone are enough for me.

It also has a decent number of tracks.  Eight cups, four tracks each, making thirty-two tracks total.  It has the standard types of tracks you see in every racing game, along with tracks themed after certain cartoons, and a few slime-filled Double Dare style courses.  It also has an arena mode with two arenas, a time trial mode, and a challenge mode where you complete challenges to unlock more goodies.

Some reviewers complained that the graphics aren't up to current gen, but honestly they're as good as I need a kart racer's graphics to be.  It has better graphics than Beach Buggy Racing, which, as I've mentioned, I've been playing weekly for more than two years.  

So it's better than people are giving it credit for.  Still, all is not perfect.  I have three complaints:

1. Drifting.  I'm not the only reviewer to mention this.  NKR2 tries so hard to copy Mario Kart's controls, but it just doesn't get drifting right.

2. Chaos.  Sometimes there's just too much going on.  Brightly animated courses, dripping slime, constant items flying by...  It's like driving through a neon circus.  Trying to figure out what's going on during the more frenetic races makes me feel old.

3. Physics.  It gets it a lot closer than some kart racers, but it still just doesn't "click" for me the way Mario Kart does.  It took me a few races to really get used to how much pressure I needed to put on the stick, and when I went to play Beach Buggy Racing again, it took a few races to unlearn NKR2 so I could get back in the BBR groove.  Also, even on the fastest setting, NKR2 doesn't feel as fast as I would like.

Despite those drawbacks, I still think NKR2 is a solid kart racer, easily worth $15 to $20.  Unfortunately, it's being sold for $40.  So if you like kart racing, I'd say add it to your wishlist, and hope it goes on sale.

Gullible

Transformers: The Movie came out in 1986.  About a year later, a friend of mine told me he saw a trailer for the sequel.  It showed Megatron returning and challenging Galvatron for the leadership of the Decepticons.  How is this possible, since they're both the same character?  Did it involve parallel worlds?  Time travel?  Though a similar scene did eventually happen in the comic book in 1991, this was well before that.

...and of course, my friend was lying.  But I was gullible enough to believe it.  I believed it so much, that I told another friend about the trailer.  Then later I lied and told the first friend that I'd seen the trailer too, and he just went, "Interesting."  That was when I realized he'd made it up.

But I had a tendency to believe people when they told me these things.  I had friends to lied to me constantly about video game news.  One guy told me that if you beat Metroid thirty times, you would get to play as Ridley or Kraid.  I spent several weekends playing the game from start to finish, until I'd beaten it at least forty times, before I called him and told him it didn't work.  Then he started adding details, "Well, each time you beat it, you have to complete it in under an hour" or whatever.  Eventually I called the Nintendo Power hotline and was told it wasn't true.

That same friend told me a lot of details about Metroid 2.  I mean, there was eventually a Metroid 2 for Gameboy, but he was a couple of years early and specifically talking about the NES.  He also told me that you could fight Ganon in Zelda 2, by beating the game a certain number of times and then using a specific spell in a specific room to resurrect him.

The dumbest part of my gullibility is that nobody ever actually scooped me when it came to video game news.  When I was in school, I was the guy everyone else called for video game tips.  Sometimes students I didn't even know would call me and ask me if I had codes for certain games.  And I usually did.

I read every video game magazine, and had subscriptions to most of them.  EGM, Nintendo Power, GamePro... if it was on the shelves, I read it.  I knew level select codes for games I'd never played, because I studied these magazines the way I should have been studying my high school textbooks.

So if somebody told me a bit of video game trivia I didn't know, well, where exactly did I think they were getting that information?  We didn't have the internet yet, and there weren't any video game programs on TV. 

I wish I could say I was less gullible now.  Frequenting sites like Snopes has made me a lot more skeptical of memes and fake news, but when it's a friend telling me something, I usually still believe them.  After all, why would they lie?