Injustice: Gods Among Us (and the Mortal Kombat Series)

Lately we've been playing Injustice: Gods Among Us.  But before we talk about that, let's go back a little.

I always had a love/hate relationship with the Mortal Kombat series.  I was a teenager when the first one came out, and at the time it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen.  Yes, the violence was attractive to my tasteless 18-year old mind, but that wasn't the biggest draw for me.  I loved the digitized actors, and some of the special moves (Scorpion's rope, Sub-Zero's freeze) were a lot more interesting than Street Fighter's punches and fireballs.  Unfortunately MK1 didn't translate very well to home systems.  I don't mean the censorship (which was annoying but didn't really make the game less fun), it's just that none of the home versions really got the controls quite right.

They made up for it with Mortal Kombat 2, which was uncensored and had better graphics, tighter controls, more characters, and lots of secrets to discover.  My fiancee KJ (now my wife) and I played that one for months.  Mortal Kombat 3 was a bit of a letdown.  No big graphical upgrade, and initially they took away some of the most popular characters.  These fighters returned in Ultimate MK3, which was nice, but it still wasn't as revolutionary as MK2 had been.  Eventually they released MK Trilogy for the home systems, and that was the pinnacle of the 2D series.  I've always preferred fighting games that have loads and loads of characters, and this was (at the time) the most I'd ever seen in a single game. 

The transition to 3D was rocky.  For me, Mortal Kombat 4 was basically a tech demo - like they were saying, "Here's the groundwork; eventually we'll be able to make a decent 3D MK game."  I didn't play much of Deadly Alliance or Deception.  Each one was better than the last, but at the time I just felt that I was "over" Mortal Kombat.

In 2006, I played Mortal Kombat Armageddon.  It was the best MK game up to that date, featuring nearly every character that had been in the series.  It was like the "MK Trilogy" of 3D MK games.  Like the previous games that I had skipped, it also had a decent single player mode that played like an adventure game.  I especially loved the Kreate-A-Fighter mode, and I wish more fighting games allowed you to build your own characters.  The only thing keeping it from being the definitive MK game was the Fatality system.  The designers tried to experiment this time, and instead of giving each fighter their own fatalities as usual, they had a weird sort of "create-your-own" fatality system where you linked together a series of brutal combos.  I never got the hang of it, and it's a dark mark on what was otherwise the height of the pre-reboot MK series.  I was certainly prepared for it to be the final MK game.

In 2008, they released Mortal Kombat Vs. DC Universe.  It was really fun for about an hour, but there just wasn't enough there to love.  It felt like the designers did just enough work to have a solid fighting game, then rushed it out the door.  I could see pulling it out again when friends are over, if I didn't already own some much better fighting games.  There is nothing hugely wrong with the game; it just goes through the motions and gets the job done.  If you see it for $10, there are worse ways you could spend the money.

In 2011, we picked up the Mortal Kombat reboot (aka MK9 or MK2011).  We bought it on a whim.  I hadn't been following the game's development, and I hadn't read any reviews of it.  KJ and I happened to see it on the shelf, and we had some extra money burning a hole in our pockets.  We were trying to decide between that and another game, and KJ was actually the one who said, "We like Mortal Kombat, let's get it."  And we played it for months.  It is so good, far better than anything the series has put out before.  The controls are tight.  My biggest complaint about the MK series was that it didn't control as easily as more serious fighters, but MK9's controls are so good that even Fatalities are a breeze to do.  It had a good-sized roster of characters, a lot of different modes and options, and a story mode that was actually interesting for a change.

Now let's be honest.  The Mortal Kombat series started as a gimmick.  First they wanted to see if they could make a fighter with digitized graphics.  Then they wanted to see how much gore they could get away with.  Later games in the series also tried to test how much skin they could show.  I recognize this, and while I have enjoyed these gimmicks in the past, I do recognize that they are gimmicks.  All these games I would enjoy until until I was out of shiny objects to find, then I'd look for another game.  So seriously, I never thought I would say this about a MK game.  But the truth is, MK9 is one of the best fighting games ever made.  If you haven't played it, and aren't put off by the violence and skimpy outfits, you can find the "Komplete Edition" (PS3, 360) for under $20 now.  It really is worth it.

And now we have Injustice: Gods Among Us.  Why did I preface my review of Injustice with a Mortal Kombat history lesson?  Well, for all intents and purposes, Injustice is the spiritual successor of MK9.  It was developed by the same set of programmers, and is very similar to MK9 in style.  The controls are a bit different (most noticably Injustice doesn't use a block button), but overall you can easily see the similarities.

So how does it measure up to its predecessor?  Well, overall I do think MK9 was a slightly better game.  It had a larger roster of fighters, and slightly more intuitive controls (in my opinion).  But truthfully, I'd have to be a more hardcore gamer to really care.

Injustice has 24 fighters (with four more coming soon as downloadable content).  The roster is split 50-50 heroes and villains, featuring most of DC's major characters.  The basic controls are simple, though some of the more complicated combos are almost impossible for me to pull off.  Granted, I'm playing on the 360, and I hate the 360's controller for fighting games.  Still, some of the most powerful moves are the easiest to perform.  You can throw background objects at your opponent by simply tapping the shoulder button.  Each character has an over-the-top Super Move which is done by pressing two shoulder buttons together.

These super moves are basically Injustice's alternative to MK's Fatalities (or MK9's X-Ray moves).  Unlike fatalities, they can be done during the match, after filling up your super meter.  It's hard to imagine anybody surviving these moves.  For example, Superman punches his opponent into space, flies after them, and punches them back to the ground.  It stretches believability a bit that people can keep fighting after getting hit by these powers, but that's nothing new for fighting games.  Seriously, how many people in real life could get hit by Ryu's fireball or Dhalsim's yoga flame and still continue the match?  Injustice just takes it a bit farther.

Also cool are the stage transitions.  Most stages have two fighting areas, and if you use the right move in the right spot, you will knock your opponent into the other part of the stage and continue the fight there.  The Mortal Kombat series has been doing this for a while, but this time the transitions are especially funny (and damaging).  If you're fighting on the roof and your opponent knocks you off, you don't just fall to the street level.  No, first you get knocked into the side of a nearby building, where a wrecking ball hits you, then you fall and land on some elevated train tracks.  The train hits you, knocking you to the street level, while the train also crashes to the ground in the background.  Again, these transitions challenge your suspension of disbelief, but they're very entertaining.

Injustice's story mode is very interesting.  Several former DC voice actors have returned, including George Newburn and Kevin Conroy.  The plot is similar to one of my favorite episodes of the Justice League animated series, but it plays out much darker.  I'm only a couple of chapters into it so far, but it already looks very compelling.  And in case you were wondering, the story mode does explain how a human like the Joker can stand up to Superman's punches.  (Update: I've now finished the story mode.  It's really good.)

Like MK9, Injustice is filled with tons of unlockable content.  Each character has an alternate outfit related to the story mode's plot.  You can unlock these outfits by spending cards you earn while playing.  There are also a lot of extra costumes that can be earned other random ways, such as by completing other game modes.  It also has some extra battle modes you can unlock, as well as the usual miscellany I probably won't bother unlocking, like concept art or music.

There's a mode called "STAR Labs" that works a lot like MK9's Challenge Tower.  You are given specific missions that sometimes involve fighting, but are just as likely to be something off-the-wall like defending the Earth from meteors.  One early mission has you controlling Catwoman's cat while avoiding museum security guards.  You even have a "meow" button.  These missions are a cool break from fighting, but a lot of them are frustratingly difficult for me.

Is it balanced?  Are the combos easy to pull off?  Is the online opponent-matching any good?  I don't know; I'm not a very hardcore gamer these days.  I will say that some of the one-button-press moves (like throwing background objects) are just as damaging as some of the moves that take more complicated button-pressing.  So lots of matches become races to see who can reach certain background objects first.  Also, some of the ranged moves (like Deathstroke's rifle) are cheap enough to be somewhat cheesy in the wrong hands.  But it's balanced enough that when KJ and I play, either one of us could win no matter who we pick.  And in the end, that's all I really care about.

The bottom line:  While I do think MK9 is technically a better game, Injustice has a lot of charm and comic geekiness that makes me like it better.  I highly recommend this game to anyone who likes fighting games and DC characters, but if you want to wait a year until a "complete" version comes out, I wouldn't blame you.

Nintendo 3DS

Still no big long post here, as I've been using up all my blogging energy for my RPG blog. 

Just wanted to mention that I have a 3DS now, so if anybody wants to add me to their friend list, here's my friend code: 1306-5310-8353

Remember you'll have to give me your code as well for it to work.  As long as we're posting friend codes, here's my Wii Code (not that I play the Wii much any more): 7045 1920 7172 8881

And my X-Box 360 handle: MattAndKJ

I'm really enjoying the 3DS.  So far I've mostly been playing Mario Kart 7, New SMB 2, and a bunch of classic NES/Gameboy games.

Super Hero Summer

Covering three:

The Avengers
I didn't bother blogging this one when it came out, because it was just too obvious.  I simply can not imagine a better super hero movie, unless Avengers 2 is just two hours of Black Widow making out with Pepper Potts. If you haven't seen the Avengers yet, you owe me $5 stupidity tax.  By the way, I've seen it with and without 3D, and it was beautiful both ways.  The 3D is great but not required, so use your own judgement there.

Amazing Spider-Man
This was fun, but I liked the other trilogy better.  And that's really the hardest part of sitting through Amazing Spider-Man - the fact that I'd seen most of it before.  Generally I don't mind remakes or reboots, in truth I think it's fun seeing how different people tackle the same story.  But in this case I wish they'd just summed up his origin story in the opening credits.  Instead, this movie actually spends more time on his origin story than the 2002 version.  We all know Spidey's origin, and while I appreciate the differences (the return of web shooters, intrigue involving his parents, Uncle Ben's accident playing out differently), they didn't need to draw it out so long.

Andrew Garfield does a decent enough job, but it really got on my nerves the way he always took so long to speak.  "How are you, Peter?"  "................................Fine."  They could have shaved 15 minutes off the movie's running time if they'd removed all the awkward conversational pauses.  You could tell a lot of the dialogue between Peter and Gwen was meant to be cutesy and clever, but it fell flat on my ears.  Maybe I'm just too old.

I loved the Lizard.  He looked great, and the fight scenes were a lot of fun, even if they did look a bit like video game cutscenes.  The part of the movie's climax involving cranes - you'll know it when you see it - was so cheesy that I can't decide whether I love it or hate it.  It was reminiscent of the "don't threaten New Yorkers" bridge scene in the 2002 movie, only much more over the top.

Overall I'd have to give it a thumbs up, but understand it really doesn't do much that wasn't done ten years ago.  I try not to judge movies based on other movies, but the bottom line is that if the earlier trilogy didn't exist, I would have been much more impressed by Amazing Spider-Man.

By the way, we saw it in 3D, which was fine, but they really didn't do much with it.  Save a couple of bucks and see it in 2D instead; you won't miss much IMO.

The Dark Knight Rises
It was really hard for me to get interested in seeing DKR.  Sure, Batman Begins was a great way to cast away old shames and restart the franchise.  And The Dark Knight was as good as a Batman movie could ever hope to be.  But none of the trailers for Dark Knight Rises really pulled me in.  After the flashy, colorful Avengers movie, I wasn't sure if I really wanted to see another gritty, realistic Batman.  

But I loved every minute of it.  And I do mean every minute, which kind of blows my mind.  The movie is nearly three hours long, and I'd heard that it lags in the middle, but I never felt bored.  There were a couple of subplots that could have been left out without affecting the movie's overall quality, but nothing that really bogged the movie down.

Bane was great.  I wasn't expecting much out of him, but he really captured the spirit of the comic book character.  But predictably, the character I liked most was Selina Kyle.  She was clever and funny...  yeah, there wasn't much there that we hadn't already seen from Black Widow, but I'd rather see it from Selina.

The movie seemed to pick bits of its plot out of several comic story arcs, such as No Man's Land, Son of the Demon, and of course Knightfall.   It's as if Christopher Nolan scoured the history of the Batman universe to find the bits that would be most believable.  In some ways it felt like a direct sequel to Batman Begins, with Dark Knight just being an interesting extra story thrown in the middle.  It ended perfectly, wrapping up all the right details and really capping off the trilogy well.

Awesome as it was, I am glad this is the last one.  It's a great trilogy, but it doesn't need more.  I hope the next Batman reboot is more on par with the 1989 movie.  The Nolanverse is awesome, but I'm ready for something a little more comic-booky again. Not silly like Batman & Robin, but just fanciful enough that it could exist in the same universe as the Justice League.  I'm tired of Marvel having all the fun.

By the way, DKR also shows the new teaser for Man of Steel.  I don't think I've ever seen a more pointless trailer full of random images.  I'll withhold judgement on the movie itself, as a lot of great movies have rotten early teasers.  But seriously, who thought this teaser was a good idea?

Random Sci-Fi Thoughts

I have often said, "There is a fundamental difference between a normal person and a sci-fi fan: a normal person actually likes sci-fi".  If I take my mom to see a Star Wars prequel or an odd-numbered Star Trek film, she'll come back saying, "That was a pretty fun space movie."  But if I take a true sci-fi fan - even if it's to a really good movie - for the next few hours I'll be subjected to diatribes about the technical mistakes, followed by rants about how modern science fiction isn't as good as the works of Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick.

There's a reason people like this get ostracized.  It's not because they're smarter than everyone else; there's plenty of popular smart people.  It's because it's just not fun hanging around people who hate everything.  It's a simple rule; when even the nerds want to kick you in the nuts, the problem is you. 

A friend posted this webcomic declaring Star Wars to be fantasy, not sci-fi.  For the most part, I agree. However, he's never going to be able to hold a job at a video store.  To quote his accompanying blog:

Hugo Gernsback, considered by many to be the father of sci-fi (and whose name you can see in, you know, the HUGO Awards) established the criteria a work had to meet to be considered science fiction:

1) The author must know science.
2) The author must be able to play with breakthrough theories and delve into how they would affect society.

So yeah,  I can totally agree there, but it's just a semantic argument.  For one thing, Gernsback actually pushed for the cumbersome term "scientifiction", so clearly he understood science more than marketing.  My personal take?  There's "Science Fiction" and there's "Sci-Fi".  Science fiction" refers to stories that actually speculate about unknown aspects of science, attempt to predict science related things (the future of technology, the biology of alien species, etc), and in general are written by people who know what they are talking about.  Sci-fi refers to stories that happen to take place in space and/or in the future, or deal with futuristic elements like aliens or robots, but that concentrate more on entertaining you than getting their facts right.

Or for a more cynical take:  If they're on a spaceship and it bores you, it's science fiction.  If they're on a spaceship and stuff blows up, it's sci-fi.

There's plenty of room for overlap there.  You can easily be more than one thing.  Star Trek is both science fiction and sci-fi, depending on the episode or the writer.  Star Wars is both fantasy and sci-fi, but rarely really touches science fiction.  Alien is both sci-fi and horror. Aliens is both sci-fi and action. Alien 3 is both sci-fi and garbage.

What bugs me is when people try to shy away from the "sci-fi" stigma. You know, the ones who say, "Don't call my book sci-fi!  Sure, it's set in space and has robots, but it's a love story, dang it!"  Twenty years ago, sure, but today?  Right now there is not a single intelligent person on Earth who doesn't love sci-fi.  Be proud of your work!  Such a tiny percentage of people actually manage to get anything published.  No matter how hard you work, becoming a well-known author or director is still like winning the lottery.  You just sound whiny when your work doesn't get reviewed and categorized exactly the way you wanted.

I do think it's weird that the Sci-Fi channel didn't seem to mind the stigma back when it was considered nerdy, but then changed their name to SyFy after sci-fi became mainstream.  That might not be why they actually changed it, but I still think it's a funny observation.

So anyway, you can rationalize all you want about how Star Wars is technically not science fiction, and I probably won't disagree with your points. But you have to admit when you're browsing Netflix and want to watch Star Wars, you're going to head for the sci-fi section.

3D or Not 3D?

*sigh*  I seem to find myself writing the same blog over and over.  I've already stood up for remakes and sequels, so I think my "live and let live" attitude here is going to be pretty obvious.  Anyway...

A few weeks ago the news broke that Jurassic Park was going to get a 3D re-release.  My brother and my cousin both immediately responded with the standard "OMG-Why?-Has-Hollywood-run-out-of-ideas-and-do-they-only-care-about-money" knee jerk reactions.  These are both very intelligent people and I usually respect their opinions, but come on guys.  Different people go to the movies for different reasons.  Heck, the same person goes to different movies for different reasons.  Sometimes you want to appreciate the film for the piece of art it is.  Other times you want to go on a roller coaster ride. 

Now my brother lives in the magical land of Xanth, where he's never more than twenty minutes from the nearest roller coaster.  He doesn't appreciate what it's like for those of us who no longer have access to a theme park.  If I want to ride a roller coaster, I have two choices.  I can drive a few hours, or I can see a 3D movie at my local IMAX.  (...which is, coincidentally, located right in the vicinity of where a few roller coasters used to be, until they paved paradise and put up a shopping mall.  But I'm not bitter... jerks.)

First off, you didn't see this coming?  Converting old movies to 3D is a trend right now.  You're going to see a lot more before it's over.  Of course they're going to start by looking at a lot of the more popular movies with big special effects.  Plus, 3D televisions are starting to get cheaper and more popular, so people are going to want a lot more 3D blu-rays for their collection, and if you're going to upconvert an old movie anyway, why not give it another run on the big screen?

They're not making you see them.  Steven Spielberg is not going to throw handcuffs on you and drag you to the theater.  Nor is George Lucas going to break into your house and convert all your Star Wars DVDs to 3D. Are you just complaining because Spielberg and Lucas are wasting time that could be spent doing other things?  Maybe... but I doubt it.  These guys have a lot of resources, and can afford to have teams working on several projects at once. 

Or are you just mad because they're going to put something in the theater you don't like?  Look, I appreciate the whole avant-garde film student schtick, but not the whole "everything sucks except for the stuff I find artsy" thing.  It's old.  The internet is full of jaded critics who think it makes them look cooler if they hate everything.  It has been played out.  It is time for people to start gushing about the stuff they like again, and ignore the stuff they hate.  It's a simple fact - you are not the entertainment industry's only target audience.  Sometimes people will release movies that aren't meant for you.  Sometimes music is released that isn't in a genre you like.  If something is released that isn't your style, don't say, "That looks awful."  Just say, "That's not for me, but someone else will probably like it."  It's what mature people do; come join us over at the grownups table.

I think people are confused by the word "converted".  It's true, if you convert your canoe into a bathtub, you'll have a hard time getting it back again.  But movies don't work that way.  Converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie does not mean that the 2D version no longer exists.  They're not "changing" your movie; they're releasing an additional version, one which you are free to ignore.

Now  I will agree, upconverted 3D isn't great yet.  Not long ago we saw Star Wars Episode I in 3D, and it really was a lukewarm experience at best.  Some scenes were better than others, but even the best scenes were like watching it through a Viewmaster.  Yes, people standing in the foreground looked closer to you than the stuff in the background, but really it was just a gimmick that didn't add anything to the movie.

More recently, I saw Wrath of the Titans in 3D.  Now that was a cool experience.  It was filmed in 3D, and it showed; I swear I had more fun at that movie than at any theme park ride I can remember.  Wrath is the kind of movie 3D was made for, and I wouldn't want to see it any other way.  It makes the 3D in Star Wars look pathetic. So yes, I see how upconversion seems like a waste of time when you could be filming new 3D movies.

But I don't begrudge George Lucas for making 3D Star Wars conversions.  Frankly, I'm just glad they're doing them in numerical order - maybe by the time they get to the good ones, they'll have perfected the process.  And that's the point, isn't it?  Technology improves when we use it.  If we just sit on this whole "upconverting" thing, it will never get any better.  But I think it would be really cool if a few decades from now, we could have glasses-free Star Wars movies in 3D that blows Wrath of the Titans away.  But we'll never get there if we don't practice now.

For now, I'll probably skip most 3D upconversions.  I'm just not into it.  It's enough for me to know that the technology is improving, and eventually might yield something worth seeing.

Anyway, the bottom line is the same as it was for the other blogs: If you don't like it, don't go see it.  But please stop whining about it; it's extremely childish, and you're ruining the fun for those who do enjoy seeing them.

The Hunger Games

I enjoyed the Hunger Games, but I didn't love it. Before seeing it, most of the complaints I'd heard about it were that it didn't follow the book. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so that wasn't an issue for me. Personally, I had three main complaints:

1. Shaky-cam. Why hasn't this died yet? It drives me crazy when people don't listen to the public. Anyone old enough to direct a movie knows by now that almost everyone hates shaky-cam. This is not new information. This is not up for debate. It's like escort missions in video games; it's hard to believe the people who make movies/games/etc are still unaware of how many people hate certain elements. Some people get annoyed by shaky-cam because they can't tell what's going on. Some people actually get nauseous. At best, some people have learned to ignore it, but it's not anyone actually looks forward to it. Never has anyone seriously said, "This would have been a better movie if they'd attached the camera to a washing machine." Shaky-cam is no longer edgy and it was never artsy. Its intention is to make you feel like you're part of the action, but all it really does is make it look like the movie was directed by a five-year-old. I can excuse shaky-cam if there's a valid reason for it, specifically "found footage" movies like Cloverfield. But in a regular movie, it's inexcusable.

2. Slow start. It takes a very long time getting to the titular contest. It's justifiable, and it's interesting to learn more about the universe, but for me it was a bit hard to sit through. It felt like the first half of the movie was exposition, and the second half was shaky-cam violence.

3. Kids killing kids. I know this is a weenie complaint, but it's hard for me to watch a movie about kids as young as 12 fighting each other to the death. Obviously there's more violent movies out there, but this movie seems to be trying to fill the Harry Potter/Narnia niche, and the subject matter seems a little grisly for that target audience. However, there's a few saving graces - first off, the tone of the movie makes it clear that the Hunger Games are a very bad thing, and the contest is much reviled by its participants. So it's not like they're actually glorifying the violence.  Also, the deaths themselves are not very graphic, thanks to the aforementioned shaky-cam.  (Of course, if this is their only reason for using shaky-cam, why is it in so many non-violent scenes as well?)

One odd thing that is bothering me is the way this movie is perceived by some of my friends. I have two friends (only one of which has actually seen the movie) who dismissed the Hunger Games as being part of the Twilight genre.

...I just... I don't even... I mean, where do I even begin? Seriously, are we talking about the same movie? Look, I don't want to be rude here, and you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't give a flying carp whether or not you liked The Hunger Games, but you can't just say "the Hunger Games is too much like Twilight" without saying something to back that statement up.

Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. The Hunger Games is about twenty-four children who are forced to fight to the death in a government-run contest. I know, it's amazing Stephanie Meyer hasn't sued for plagiarism. Sure, there is a small romantic side plot, but it probably doesn't even add up to fifteen ten minutes of the movie. Honestly, there was more romance the The Terminator. Now, I will say that Hunger Games does set up a potential love triangle that will probably get more screen time in the second movie. So I guess you could pre-judge the sequel for being Twilight-esque, assuming you're so sheltered that you think Twilight invented the the love triangle. But even then, we're not discussing the sequel here, or the book trilogy for that matter. We're discussing a single movie called The Hunger Games, and wondering in what universe it shares any similarity with Twilight.

If I had to compare The Hunger Games to another movie, I'd say it mostly reminded me of The Running Man. Dystopian "crapsack world", life-or-death contest watched by a sadistic society, you get the picture. The real difference is the tone; Running Man concentrated on the action, while Hunger Games spends more time on the world-building.

The comparison with Twilight just instantly pisses me off.  I'm trying to analyze myself to see why it's such a berserk button for me.  I think it's because the world really needs more movies like The Hunger Games.  Female-driven stories that aren't about finding the perfect man.  I've noticed this movie is being marketed towards girls (especially after seeing the toys mixed in with Barbie in the toy aisle) and yet it's nothing like your typical chick flick.  I came away from the movie thinking of it as sort of an anti-Twilight, really.  Some people said Twilight set feminism back 30 years; well, more movies like The Hunger Games could be the answer.  That said, I hope Hunger Games does attract a few Twilight fans. Twihards could use a dose of the feminism that's present in The Hunger Games. It's definitely a step in the right direction, anyway.

Anyway, complaints aside, I still enjoyed the movie, and I can't wait to read the book. I hope it makes a lot of money, and the director uses that money to buy a tripod for the sequel.  Btw, if you want to read a more thorough review of The Hunger Games (rather than just a rant against shaky-cam and Twilight comparisons), from someone who's actually read the book, please check out my cousin's blog here.

The Woman In Black

I'm going to keep this relatively spoiler-free, but I really don't think there were any twists worthy of spoilage anyway.  I'm not sure why this movie is getting such good reviews.  It didn't totally suck, but it didn't break any new ground either. Radcliffe does a great job, and the movie is directed well, but overall there's just nothing to write home about.

In The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe plays a financially-troubled lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is sent to a small town to handle an estate.  Of course, everyone in town knows his presence is going to piss off the local ghost.  But as usual, instead of actually telling Kipps why they hate him, they just glare at him through windows and try to thwart his attempts to find a place to stay.  Granted, Kipps wouldn't have believed them if they had been honest, but that's not the point.  What bothers me the artificial tension generated by doling out exposition one morsel at a time.  If this many townsfolk want him to leave town that badly, it seems like at least one of them would consider confronting him with the truth, even if they risk looking crazy.  The reason they don't has nothing to do with the plot, but rather the writer's attempts to create drama through careful dispersal of information. 

Anyway, there's nothing here you haven't seen before.  As a horror movie, it's more spooky than scary.  Several times you see the titular shadowy spirit floating around behind Kipps, almost to the point where you get used to her.  It has a lot of sudden surprises, with things jumping out unexpectedly.  If you've seen more than three scary movies in your life, you will always know when something is about to happen.  I mean, it's usually so obvious that they could have flashed "Jump Scare Coming" on the screen.  You'll see Radcliffe step back, leaving 75% of the screen free to make room for whatever is about to appear.  The soundtrack will then get quiet so as not to interfere with the upcoming Scare Chord.  You won't necessarily know what was about to jump out and yell "Boo", but you will know in plenty of time that something is coming.

To me, ghost movies often seem like they're easy to write, because the writers never seem to think much about the ghost's motivation.  Everything they do is designed to scare the audience more than the characters.  They will often jump out at times that don't make sense plot-wise, and expend energy appearing in the background where none of the characters actually see them.  They'll knock on doors and rattle knobs even though they've had no problem passing through walls in other scenes.  At times they act like mindless animals, tormenting the protagonists who are trying to help the ghosts by laying their bones to rest.  They're powerful enough to kill the characters whenever they want, but they prefer to play with their food instead. 

Anyway, I wouldn't call the movie a complete waste of time, but I really can't think of anything good to say about it.  If you've already seen a ghost movie this lifetime, then you've pretty much seen this one.  One warning to the sensitive - this movie is cruel to children.  Most of the victims in this movie are young kids, so if that sort of thing bothers you, that's one more reason to give this one a pass.

The Walking Dead

I recently read the Walking Dead comic book series.  I'd already watched the first season on TV, and a little of the second.  Several of my friends talked me into reading the comics, so I could see where the show deviated from the source material and whatnot.  I read the entire series and I'm now caught up to the current month.  I don't know if I'm going to keep reading it, though.  For one thing, I'm at a great stopping point, where I can just say "...and they lived happily ever after" rather then see how things get screwed up this time.  For another thing, I don't really like reading comics month-to-month.  A single issue of a comic is just too short, and I don't remember from one month to the next what's happening.  I'd rather wait until there's about 25 more issues, so I don't have to read it as "story McNuggets." 
 
Anyway, Walking Dead is a pretty decent comic series, though it's not the type of story I generally like.  I'm told that when it first came out, the writer said he didn't like the way zombie movies end.  The survivors always get into a helicopter or a boat, and ride off into the sunset... but you never know what happens next.  It's a world filled with zombies; where are they going to go?  So he made the comic intending to be a long-running series (it's on issue 90-something right now, with no signs of stopping), so it would cover all the day-to-day stuff: where they go for safety, how they keep finding food, and so on.

That's where the really shines, in my opinion.  They cover all the little details, the stuff you rarely see in a two-hour movie.  The longevity also gives it drama as well - they have to worry about changing weather, the longevity of canned goods, looting buildings that have already been picked clean, pregnancy, relationships, mental stability, and so on.  The movies usually all take place right after the initial event, so they don't get into these long-term problems.

The downside?  Well, it's a cruel world with very few pick-me-ups, and after a while that gets pretty depressing.  It's hard to really look forward to reading a comic where only bad things happen.  It has a large revolving cast, with people constantly getting killed off while others are introduced.  Just like in the zombie movies, no one is safe, not even the major characters.  I know many people regard this type of writing as a refreshing change of pace, but you know my feelings on downer endings.  I generally give horror a pass, zombie stories doubly so, because tragedy is an important part of the genre.  But that doesn't make it fun to read.  Some of the more significant deaths still haunt me 40 issues later.  It's no secret that the title doesn't just refer to the zombies, but to the main characters themselves (in fact, it kind of beats you over the head with it).  All the survivors are living on borrowed time.  It never seems like they're actually working toward something, except maybe a safe place to stay for a few months.  This is not a story about humans working against all odds towards ridding the world of a zombie infestation.  This is a story of the last gasps of civilization, of how the final humans struggled to postpone their deaths for a few months.

So why did I keep reading it?  Well, that just shows how well it's written.  A true test of an author is whether they can keep you interested in a type of story that generally turns you off.  There are no real "good guys" in the series.  The main characters are the heroes only because those are the characters the story focuses on.  They sometimes do selfless things, but in truth, everyone is just out to protect their own families and friends.  Some of them are idealistic at first, but that gets beaten out of them eventually.  The zombies are not the biggest obstacles in the series, and they quite often fade into the background.  Most of the story's conflict comes from other live humans.  It's a world where only the strongest survive, and that tends to breed a lot of jerks.

I've been a little obsessed with sexism in comics recently, and I'm happy to say that I don't see a lot in the Walking Dead.  Two of the most competent characters in the series are female, and I see very little gender disparity.  Both sexes get killed and maimed in relatively equal numbers.  Both sexes have strong characters, weak characters, and every personality type in between.  Others may disagree, but I don't see any evidence that the author even considers gender a factor in deciding who has the most skills or who gets killed next.  Now, about midway through the series, there was one particular rape/torture scene that made a lot of people uncomfortable.  It caused an uproar in their letters column, and they probably lost a few readers at that point.  I can't say whether this plotline was really needed, though it build the villain up to be that much more despicable.  When the victim finally got her revenge a few issues later, it was quite satisfying, though it didn't really make up for the initial crime.  That entire storyline is considered by some to be a low point in the series (and not just because of the controversy... one dramatic scene comes off so silly it's listed on the TVTropes "Narm" page), but the series does get better after that.

Anyway, whether I continue to read it or not, I'm glad I read what I have so far.  Now, regarding the TV series... it's not bad.  I really enjoyed the first season, and I like the way it goes off in so many different directions from the comic.  It's similar enough to where you say, "wow, that's good casting for that character", but it's different enough that reading the comic won't give away what happens next (or vice versa).  Like a lot of people, I did get bored during their stay at the farmhouse in the second season, and only time will tell if I start watching again.  (I'm also a little miffed that they fired Frank Darabont.) 

Really, TV series or comic, you won't go wrong to give either one a try.

Update 1/12/2012; Some Spoilers:

Okay, I was thinking it over, and there actually was one additional reason I might not return to the comic.  It's because everybody's fair game.  There's a few characters I really like, and I know they're going to die sooner or later.  It might be 100 issues from now, when sales start to falter and the writer decides he needs to shake things up a little.  But it will happen.  Heck, I'm an issue or two behind by now, so it might have already happened.  And this isn't like Marvel and DC, where death is only temporary.  But as long as I stop reading now, they'll live forever.

I know that sounds silly.  I mean, I can't just stop reading/watching all fiction out of the fear that characters will die.  But I don't look at a long-running ongoing series as "art" the same way I would with a stand-alone movie or novel.  In a novel, everything happens for a reason.  Usually the entire story is plotted out from the beginning.  Yes, the author comes up with new ideas as the story comes along, and things might not end up playing out like the author originally intended.  But there's still time before publishing to go back and edit the early chapters to make sure they're more in sync with the later ones.  The point is, novels and movies are subject to Chekhov's Gun.  Superfluous details are kept to a minimum, every death has a point, and the entire package can be viewed as a piece of art.

An ongoing TV or comic book series doesn't work the same way.  Individual episodes (or issues) might, and often even an entire TV season (or comic book story arc) will follow a novel's structure.  But very rarely will issue 94 of a comic book series feature a twist that was foreshadowed in issue 3.  The writer (if it's even the same writer by then) might wish he could go back and stick a detail into an earlier issue, but it's way too late by then.  No, series fiction just sort of plods along like life, changing with the seasons, and only the most recent events tend to really matter.  In a way, that makes them more realistic than stand-alone stories, because the patterns are less predictable.

What am I missing here... oh, yes, a point.  My point is, while a series does have some advantages over novels and movies, they are less of an "art" in my mind.  The series gets handed to different writers and artists after a while, and it becomes a communal storytelling experience, like that flashlight game you play around the campfire.  And enjoyable experience, sure, but nothing I'd stick in a museum.  Even if it keeps the same writer throughout, after a while he loses his original vision, and quality goes downhill.  Sometimes they'll keep it going long after they've run out of ideas.  This is unfortunate because the same writer might still be capable of doing something great on a fresh project.  Instead he wastes those ideas by trying to fit them into his existing universe, where they don't work quite as well.  And then his work becomes something so rotten that humanity itself is infected, causing the entire human race to die off, leaving penguins to rule the Earth.  Sorry, I was seeing if you were still listening.

In any event, I wouldn't say that the Walking Dead comic is getting stagnant quite yet, and the author probably still has a lot of great twists up his sleeve.  But so far the pattern has been "Find a safe place, make the safe place better, get betrayed by humans, find a new safe place" over and over.  It was fun the first few times, but I need a break.  I'm going to go read something else now, and let the Walking Dead survivors enjoy their current safe place.

Also, I wanted to revisit my paragraph on sexism, and clarify that my praises only apply to the comic book.  The TV series keeps missing the mark on the gender equality front.  Most of the women on the show are weepy complainers.  It's particularly irksome because one of them, Andrea, is one of the most capable characters in the comic.  On the show, she's whiny and suicidal.  But some things are actually handled better in the TV series.  The affair between Shane and Lori actually plays out much better on TV, IMO.  Shane was killed off very early in the comic, and his presence on the show almost works like the butterfly effect - that one little change makes the entire plot play out in different directions.  I like to think of the comic and the TV show as existing in the same continuity, until Shane's death splinters the timeline.  It's almost like one of Marvel's "What If" comics; you could call the show, "What if Shane had never been shot?"

Do Transporters Kill You And Copy You?

Every once in a while, I come across a website that talks about the way Star Trek (and some other misc sci-fi) transporters work. They often conclude that transporters actually work by disintegrating you, then making an exact copy at the destination. Which of course brings up a thousand other questions. If it were so easy to copy a person, why would people have to die at all? Why not just backup all your crew members every day like you do with any other data? Even disease, lost limbs, etc, could be cured through transporter use. Why kill the original crew member? Why not just send down a copy, have him complete the mission, then disintegrate him, without ever disintegrating the original on the ship?

Here's my opinion. Mind you, this explanation is silly and unscientific, but no more so than most Star Trek technology. Basically, in the Star Trek universe, they have discovered how to convert matter into energy and vice versa. The reason they aren't killing you is because it's the same energy particles being converted back into matter. So first the transporter changes you into energy particles, atom by atom. Then those particles are shot to another location (much like a phaser shoots a beam of energy), then those same particles are converted back into matter, atom by atom. If someone simply recorded your transporter pattern and made another you using any old energy, that would be a copy. But since it's the same particles being temporarily transformed from one state to another and back, it's still you.

This is supported a little bit by the fact that you can't beam through shields. You can still send data through shields; enemy ships often communicate with each other. If a transporter pattern were just normal data, you could send it to the other ship just like you send a communication signal. You can't shoot phasers through shields either. So, maybe transporters work more like phasers than communicators, in that they fire energy rather than just data.

In a few episodes, the crew members mention experiences they've had during transport. There was an early TNG episode where they did a "near-warp tranpsort", and a crew member mentioned feeling like they were in a nearby wall for a second. A much later episode had Barclay wrestling with monsters in the transporter stream. While these are some of the sillier examples of the way the writers have abused the technology, they do support the idea that the energy particles themselves are still alive and retain some aspect of the matter converted.

Also, they often beam straight to a remote location (rather than another transporter pad). To me, this means that when they start the conversion process, the conversion back is inevitable. Meaning, your body is turned into energy particles that are only meant to stay energy particles for a few seconds before they turn back. So it is your actual pattern being sent across space, not just data waiting to be reconverted from random energy particles at the destination.

Admittedly, one thing that doesn't fit is Thomas Riker. If they'd established that one was "real" and one was a copy, I'd be fine. But they seem to imply that both are 100% Riker. When they boosted the signal that split his pattern, they were adding non-Riker particles to the Riker particles, which means that either one is made from pure non-Riker energy, or each of them is now only x% Riker. Though perhaps, every time someone is transported, a few atoms are lost and replaced with those from random energy. But since your body replaces cells all the time anyway, it's no big loss. So right after the accident, both Rikers were only 50% Riker (more or less) for a while. But ever since then their bodies have been replacing their own skin cells, so the now each of them is closer to being 100% real.

Again, I admit this is all Insane Troll Logic. But to me it makes more sense than the Federation routinely using a system that involves killing people and copying them.

Give Me A Happy Ending...

We recently slogged through Torchwood: Miracle Day. For those who don't know, Torchwood is a depressingly pessimistic spin-off of Doctor Who.  DW has two spin-offs: The Sarah Jane Adventures is pretty much a children's show, that showcases the whimsical side of the Whoniverse.  Meanwhile, Torchwood is a more adult-oriented program with much darker themes. While Sarah Jane is off fighting rubber-suited space vultures, Torchwood's Jack Harkness generally encounters Baraka-like Weevils and other creatures you usually only see in horror movies.

But it's not the creatures Jack faces, but his decisions on how to deal with them that really make the show. Jack constantly finds himself stuck in "You must torture this puppy to death to save the Earth" type situations. His ability to make these difficult decisions is one of the character's defining characteristics. I really enjoyed the first season of Torchwood, but as the show went on, it just got more and more depressing. I don't want to post any spoilers here, but it seems like whenever they had the choice of either doing a clever plot twist or doing something cruel, and they always choose cruel. Part of me wants to declare that Miracle Day was the last straw, and declare I'm done with Torchwood.  But I really like Jack Harkness, and I'll probably still watch whatever sadistic plotline they put him in next.

Honestly, I just don't like sad endings. To me, this is what a story is, at its core: Someone is presented with a challenge, then overcomes it.  As far as I'm concerned, this is THE formula for writing. This is how the writer knows where to begin the story, where to put the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and so on. Without that, it's not a story, it's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

The writer's job is to come up with a difficult and interesting challenge, one worthy of the audience's time. The writer's next job is to come up with a solution to the challenge. If the writer succeeds on creating a challenge but fails on the solution, then they've only done half the work. It's like a joke without a punchline. If the hero of the story doesn't succeed, then it's like the writer is holding up a sign that says, "I suck at writing. I don't know the first thing about story structure. I managed to get as far as constructing a challenge, but I was too stupid to come up with a solution.  Pity me, criticize me, or instruct me; but under no circumstances bother to watch or read anything I have written. "

Oooh! But dark is edgy! It's new, it's hip, it's a cool twist! Give me a break. We've had tragedies since the dawn of writing.  Every time someone brings up how much they love the modern Battlestar Galactica, I end up having the same conversation. I tried to watch the show. I watched most of the first season, and while it was well-written, it was just too depressing. "But that's the beauty of it," they say. "Finally a show that doesn't stick to the super-happy Hollywood formula, where all problems are solved every episode."

I don't know, twenty years ago I might have agreed with that. When I was in high school, I'll admit I did go through a phase where I was sick of everything always having a happy ending. An entire childhood of nothing but happy endings made me want something different. But then I saw too many tragedies.

Which doesn't mean there was suddenly a rush of sad movies during that time. It's more likely that I expanded my own horizons. I got into horror movies. I started watching more anime instead of US cartoons. I watched Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, which featured often-tragic twist endings.  For a while I really got into the darker side of storytelling.  Heck, I still like these things when they're well-written.  It's when they're depressing for no reason that it really gets my hackles up.

Aliens had a somewhat happy ending. Sure, most of the characters died, but I liked the ones who lived. I remember wishing it would have another sequel, but even if it didn't, I was satisfied with how things had turned out. Then they had to screw it up with Alien 3. The entire movie, things just got more and more depressing for Ripley... until she died.  After Ripley found out she was hosting an alien embryo, we spent half the movie wondering how she was going to get out of it.  After all, no one had had successfully survived an alien pregnancy yet, so how is she going to do it?  That's the essence of drama - knowing the character is doomed.  A good author lets you think this every time, but then throws in a twist that allows the character to escape.  You know what would have been a great twist for Alien 3?  Finding a last-minute way to let Ripley survive.  You know what was a boring cop-out that showed the full extent of the author's lack of writing ability?  The way it really ended.

Or how about Candyman? I like horror movies, but I prefer the ones where the main character survives. It's their reward for all the hardships they go through in the movie. Otherwise, what's the point? Why did you show us this? So in Candyman, bad things just keep happening to the main character, things just keep getting worse and worse for her until the movie's climax - that would be the perfect time for her to turn it around, right? After all, that's what a story is, showing how someone gets over hardships, right? Nope, she dies. That's not entertainment. That's locking someone in a cage and poking them with a stick until you finally get bored and shoot them. Yes, tragedies have existed since the old Greek plays, but that doesn't they're always fun to watch today. Remember, those were the same people who invented the "Hand of God" and other silliness. Writing is supposed to have evolved since then.

And then there's The Mist, but I've already covered that one.  To sum up, a great movie was ruined by a silly punchline, turning the last two hours of your life into a sick joke.  I still love Frank Darabont, but he owes me for that one.

Okay, obviously I'm in the minority on this one, since depressing shows are so popular. Perhaps there's more sociopaths than there used to be, and they just like to watch characters suffer. Or maybe it's easier to count your own blessings when you're watching someone who's worse off than you are.  "It's more realistic," they say.  But I'm not so much into realism. When I watch TV/movies, it's escapism.  If I was into realism, I wouldn't watch movies about dragons and robots, I'd watch movies about applying for a home loan or getting an oil change.

I still consider Twilight Zone and Outer Limits to be top-notch fiction, because those tragedies at least show some clever writing.  A good writer can get away with a downer ending. There are times when that's the only way a story really can end. Sometimes that's the entire point of the story, and it would lose impact for it to end any other way. In general, only really good writers can get away with it. So unless your last name is Serling or Orwell, you're really just being pretentious. In my opinion, writing a sad ending is like wearing a T-shirt that says "I'm Awesome"... if you were truly awesome, you wouldn't need the T-shirt. And if you were actually a good writer, you wouldn't feel the need to stoop to "edgy".  Pessimistic authors are the whiny emo gothboys of the writing world.

So yeah, I'm a pretty weird human. I like sequels and remakes, I don't mind hype, I actually like the Star Wars prequels, and I now I reveal I don't like tragedies.  Perhaps I'm not anybody's target audience, but I have to believe I'm not the only one who feels this way.  The bottom line is, a sad ending is okay if the story demands it, but too many writers are writing sad endings for the wrong reasons.

Sequels

Consider this a sequel to my blog defending remakes. The hype blog fits too; it all goes under a larger veil of "If you don't want to see a movie, then save your money, but stop complaining that it was made in the first place. Don't ruin it for the people still want to see it." That in itself is a subset of the larger category, "Quit whining, you whiny whiner." Actually, I think a lot of my blogs could pretty much be summed up as, "Don't make me come over there."

I agree that 90% of sequels are crap. But I'll have to direct you to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Think movies were better in the old days? Come on, have you watched MST3K? There's a simple reason it seems like classic movies were better: only the 10% that were good are still remembered.  Sequels are the same way; they pretty much have a 1 in 10 chance of being worth watching.  Therefore, the logical solution isn't to make fewer sequels, it's to make many many more sequels, to increase the odds that some of them are good.  You don't win the lottery by buying fewer tickets.

Most sequels suck for a reason. Original movies are often the result of a writer having an epiphany. Just like any other artist, he gets a grand vision that he needs to share with the world, then puts his blood and sweat into making it a reality. Meanwhile, sequels are often pushed by the marketing department, to cash in on a moneymaker. The plots are often contrived, because of the finality of the original movie's ending. Sometimes they cruelly unravel the "happily ever after" ending of the first movie. Large chunks of the plot might be the result of which actors were available. These are not the acts of a creative writer, these are the acts of someone trying desperately to squeeze out more story when there just isn't one to tell.

Even so, I like sequels. When a story is good, I just don't want it to end. Even if a sequel isn't very good, I like seeing my favorite characters again; it's like revisiting an old friend.  In the super hero genre, the second movie is often the best one of the series, since they don't spend half the movie telling the hero's origin. Without sequels, we wouldn't have The Empire Strikes Back, Evil Dead 2, Aliens, Spider-Man 2, Terminator 2, and The Dark Knight.

But even if I hated every sequel ever filmed, I'd still respect their right to get made. This attitude of, "I don't want to see it, so it shouldn't exist" is what really drives me crazy.  I like to think there's something for everyone.  Therefore, if you were to somehow block a sequel from getting released, you could be eliminating what might have become someone else's favorite movie.  All because you couldn't just ignore the film's existence.  Hey, I'm not particularly fond of your favorite movie either, shall I shove it through my existence-cancelling wormhole?  Let's see how you like it!

But I digress.  My point is... um... quit whining, you whiny whiner!  Now, bring on Titanic 2!

The "New" 52... I Was Promised A Reboot

I used to be an avid reader of DC comics. I read a few random issues of Superman as a kid, but I didn't really start reading until the Superman reboot in the 80s. It was a great time to get into the series. I got to see everyone's first appearance, both new villains and reinvented oldies. They also took the opportunity to tighten up Superman's abilities and explain them a bit better. The writing was better than it had ever been; the characters felt deeper. Sure, Superman was still the world's oldest boy scout, but he no longer felt so two-dimensional. More interaction with his parents made it clear why he was such a goody-goody.

Of course, comics are a gateway drug. At first I only read Superman, but then he would crossover with another hero, and I'd pick up a few issues of their comic to learn more about them. After a while I was buying more than a dozen titles, and I built up a large collection pretty quickly. But then I grew up.  Which is not to say I think comics are childish, it's just that I had less disposable income as an adult, and I couldn't always fit comics into the budget. My buying habits dwindled for a while, and eventually I stopped altogether. When I finally started making more money, I considered picking it up again, but too much time had passed. There were so many new characters and plotlines, I didn't want to have to sort it all out. There just wasn't a good entry point. The final nail in the coffin was when I sold my collection.

When I first heard about the 2011 DC reboot, I was somewhat excited. From what I'd read, they were rebooting the entire universe from scratch. New costumes! New characters! No more continuity snarls! I can finally pick up an issue of Batman without worrying about when such-and-such a character was introduced or keeping track of which heroes know Batman's secret identity. Then I saw this picture:

...and loved it.Superman's costume looks so much better without the red briefs. I'm not so sure about the collar, but it's a small thing. From what I've read, he's wearing some sort of Kryptonian battle armor.  It seems kind of weird that Superman would wear armor, when one of his most well-known powers is invulnerability.  But the suit looks so good, I don't really care.  It's not as pretty in some contexts, though.  I hate the way it looks on the cover of Superman #1, where he almost looks like a robot.  But it looks much better in the issue itself:

Left: Cover of Superman #1      Right: Inside the same issue

My only serious complaint is that several of the costumes look like they were designed by the same person. Aquaman, GL, and Supes all have the high collars.  Supes and Bats have similar segment joints in their body armor. Since all these people got their costumes from different places, it's weird that they look so much alike.   I'm very pleased with Wonder Woman.  I've always hated her costume, it was too patriotic. Why did she always look like Miss USA when she came from Themyscira? But her new one is great, especially the pants. I know their target audience is teen boys, but I still don't think every single female hero has to be about showing as much skin as possible.  Unfortunately, in her actual first issue she isn't wearing that costume; maybe she'll get it later.

I'm not really digging Clark Kent's new look... he kind of reminds me of Harry Potter.  They seem to be emphasizing his meekness, and making him more of a social outcast.  But it helps his secret identity, in my opinion, by making him look more like someone you would ignore.

Left: Younger Clark from Action Comics #1; Right: Adult Clark from Superman #1

What I would have done:
They didn't ask me (why does nobody ever ask me?), but I had my own ideas of what they should do with the reboot. I would have it split into two universes. Universe 1 would be the "Icons" or "Legends" line. Each series would start with the character's origin, bring them up to their iconic age, and then freeze them in time. Each hero would wear their most well-known costume. This universe would have plenty of crossovers, but not to the point where you'd have to read another hero's comic to understand what's going on. Most stories would be wrapped up in within the issue, and overall the Universe 1 would be more shallow than Universe 2. Very little would change over the years. U1 would also be more "all-ages" than U2, with simpler plots and more action than romance. In other words, when Timmy's grandmother stops by the store to pick him up an Aquaman comic, this is the comics line it should come from.

Universe 2 would be more interesting. U2 would be presented with the understanding that they'll probably reboot again in 30 years, and the stories would be presented in real time to some extent. So naturally they would start each hero as young as possible, so they wouldn't be geriatric by the time the next reboot came around. The first few issues of Superman would still show him as a child, but once the origin arc was over, he'd probably be about 18. Now, comic book time is a bit weird, and you can't really make each issue take place a month apart when a 3-issue story arc seems to all happen in the same day. However, they would still age relative to the year. So in 2011, Superman would be 18. In 2012, he would be 19, and so on. When they reboot again in 2041, Superman would be 48, though he might not look it thanks to his Kryptonian physiology. Unlike U1, the U2 comics would have all sorts of costume changes, cosmic events that change history, romances, weddings, pregnancies, deaths, rebirths, and all the other soap opera-esque elements we've come to tolerate.


What they really did:
Anyway, I'm rebooting the last two paragraphs because nothing like it came to pass. For starters, not everything was rebooted. Sure, DC relaunched with 52 titles that all say #1 on the cover, but most of them still rely on previous continuity. Worse yet, they're not even clear on how much of the previous continuity still happened. Also, not all the issues are happening at the same time.  For example, Action Comics is telling the new Superman's origin, while Superman is covering his current exploits.  I'm okay with that, since they might want to go back a few years to tell someone's origin story. But they're not really even doing that with most of them.

Superman's new origin doesn't start with Krypton exploding or baby Kal-El crashing to Earth; it starts with him as a young adult, when he first starts to make appearances as a super hero. Meanwhile, Batman starts out with sidekick Robin already being played by his son Damien Wayne. Batgirl has Barbara Gordon once again playing the title role, but events of The Killing Joke still happened (it says it happened 3 years ago, despite TKJ being released in 1988, but that's comic book time for you.). So Babs was still shot, but she got better, and her comic doesn't even tell you how she was healed. Supergirl is brand new again, making this the 437th version of the character.

It looked like a good time to start reading comics again, but after reading a few issues I was more confused than ever. I finally had to resort to Wikipedia to clear things up. As it turns out, this all follows the events of Flashpoint, the last universe-wide story arc of the pre-reboot continuity. In that story, several alternate realities merge, so that only certain parts of the DC universe are replaced with new versions of old characters, giving us the New 52. Kind of like the 2009 Star Trek movie, it's a rewriting of history that's still based on the previous canon.

So certain things just didn't happen... but it's not just that, other things must have happened instead. Okay, so nothing happened to Batman - he's so badass, even reboots can't touch him - but he has interacted with Superman in the previous continuity, which means now those interactions were either with the new version of Superman or didn't happen at all.  Hasn't Superman saved Batman's life before?  Would the new version of Superman have still been in the same place at the same time?  I feel like they're skipping a big chunk of rewritten content I'd like to see.

In some ways this is more cruel than if they had just rebooted. For example, Clark Kent's human parents are dead in the new continuity. Now, if it had been a full reboot, then I could imagine that the Kents are still alive in that alternate universe of pre-reboot continuity. But this isn't an alternate universe, it's the same universe, but where certain events have been overwritten. The Kents didn't just die, the final years of their lives were actually erased. Every death provkes sad thoughts of "what might have been", but in the Kents' case, it's a matter of "what actually happened, then later unhappened."

I am enjoying some of what I'm reading, but I feel like I need a master guide to see how it all fits together. After all this hype about DC starting fresh, even people ranting about them throwing out 20+ years of continuity, it turns out to be just another timeline-affecting event like Crisis or Zero Hour. I'm not mad or anything, I'm just disappointed that I'm not getting the reboot I was expecting.

Step on clutch, shift to second...
One thing that's starting to bother me is the sexism. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on most subjects; on any particular issue I waffle just enough to offend people on both sides. My traditionalist friends would probably call me a feminist, but my feminist friends probably think I'm sexist. Anyway, not to get too preachy, but you should really read this article on the sexism in the DC reboot. I think it's spot-on, and I would love it every member of the DC staff were required to read it. If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, this Shortpacked comic strip will give you the gist.

It is now the 21st century, and more women are into geekdom than ever before. Hobbies that were considered exclusively male when I was a kid (video games, D&D, sci-fi) now have a much higher percentage of female enthusiasts. This would be the perfect time to show a little enlightenment, and increase their readership. Sure, they might lose a few guys who were only buying the comics to look at cleavage (assuming anyone's actually done this since the invention of the internet), but they stand to gain a lot of female readers. Instead, it's like the writers are intentionally trying to keep girls from picking up comics. The comics are starting to remind me of those car magazines where every picture includes a bikini-clad model posing on the car.

I'm not offended by near-nudity (or even full nudity). I enjoy eye candy as much as the next guy. Heck, I'd be perfectly happy if DC would do a spin-off universe that was completely adults-only.  But this isn't about nixing eye-pleasing heroes, or removing sexuality from comics.  You can have all that stuff and still make a comic worth reading.  They just don't seem to be giving women any respect at all. I really don't understand why DC wants to ostracize a gender that comprises more than half the world's population.  Of course, Marvel's not any better; they have their own controversies (usually surrounding Mary Jane).

All that aside, I've always been angry at the lack of respect given to my favorite female heroes. It doesn't help that my faves are Batgirl and Supergirl, both gender-swapped spin-offs of more popular characters. But I can't help it, I've always loved them. So it seriously hurts me the way they've been killed, crippled, rebooted, and reinvented so many times over the years.  Superman and Batman have had the same secret identities (minus a few short vacations) for more than 70 years.  Why can't their distaff counterparts keep stable identities?  I could go off on a whole side-rant about the Women in Refrigerators trope, but it's been covered by plenty of bloggers better than I.

...and back into neutral...
Anyway, despite my own misconceptions about the reboot, and the off-putting sexism, I do like a lot of what I've read from the new reboot.  The Aquaman comic seemed particularly self-aware, with all sorts of jokes about him being the last superhero you would call for most emergencies, and people making fun of his fish communication powers.  I've never cared for Green Lantern, but the New Guardians (a team made up of one of each color lantern) looks interesting.  Teen Titans and Superboy (which tie in together very closely) both had me wanting the next issue to arrive sooner.  Detective Comics has a creepy cliffhanger involving the Joker, and you can guarantee I'll be checking out the conclusion.  Supergirl was decent, if a little too similar to her last "first appearance" in 2004.

So basically, I'm not sure if I'm going to keep reading, or just leave it alone.  I don't need the hassle of storing a large collection of comic books again, so I'm probably going to wait until some of the better storylines are collected and released as trade paperbacks.  It's sad that they couldn't have handled things just a little bit better.  They almost got me to start buying comics again.

Hate the Hype, Not The Hyped

Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of TV these days, but I've been very fortunate about hype. I saw the trailer for Inception maybe twice before we saw the actual movie. I managed to watch the film and form my own opinion about it well before the hype train crashed through my living room.
The early reviews I read of Inception were great. Everyone called it creative, mind-blowing, intelligent, and so on. But as the days went on, I started seeing more and more reviews that called it over-hyped and not worthy of all the attention it was getting. In other words, these people listened to the hype and built the movie up to be the greatest film ever created, which of course it wasn't. I hate that kind of review, because it really doesn't review the movie itself; it only measures whether the movie lived up to the anticipation. These reviews also make the flawed assumption that everyone is going to experience the same amount of hype. That's obviously not going to be true, since different people watch different amounts of TV, and visit different web sites.

Back in 1994, a couple of friends of mine refused to see Forrest Gump because of the hype. They figured that since most people are idiots, anything that popular must suck. I agree with them about the idiots part, but even so, some things are popular simply because they deserve to be. Knowing these friends, they would have loved Forrest Gump if they could have seen it sans hype.  But they never gave it a chance.  That's how deep Hype Aversion runs for some people.

Heck, just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine complained about how much hype Titanic got when it came out. That was 14 years ago, are you not over it yet? Those wounds must run really deep. Were you bitten by a movie trailer when you were a child?

But when a movie is over-hyped, exactly who are you blaming? Are you sure it's the people who deserve it? In most cases, production and marketing are two different departments. You shouldn't blame the makers of Forrest Gump just because it was over-marketed. I doubt Robert Zemeckis himself was the one buying up ad time. Besides that, no matter how good a movie is, it's always the job of marketing to give a movie as much advertising as they think they can afford. So really you're just mad because the movie had a large advertising budget, which has nothing to do with how good the movie is.

Plus, a lot of the hype comes from the fans, not the studio. This is the information age. If a movie is good, people will talk about it. If you spend any time at all on the internet, you're going to hear about this movie 1000 times a day. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It's one thing to "punish" an overly-advertised movie by not buying a ticket, but I've actually heard people complain about hype that came from non-funded sources, such as news articles, blogs, and online forums. Seriously? You're complaining because a movie was talked about? Should they only make movies that aren't worth talking about?

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually enjoy seeing the same commercials over and over. I don't like seeing the best scenes of the movie 100 times before I actually get to watch the whole thing. I don't want to sift through 50 posts on the same subject just to find a new topic on a message board. But none of these are reasons to judge the film itself. I try not to pay much attention to commercials, and I already disregard 90% of what I read on the internet. If a movie looks good, I'll see it. While I'm sitting in the theater, I don't give a moment's thought to what the internet thought of it. My advice - if you truly can't enjoy a movie for its own merits, and have to compare everything to the buzz around it, then sell your TV, stay off the internet, and see movies either on opening weekend or 10 years later.

Green Lantern

Green Lantern is not a particularly good movie. That said, I do think the critics are being a little hard on it. Everywhere I look, people are tearing it apart. One friend of a friend actually walked out. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where it was that bad. It's not brilliant, but what do you really want from a comic book movie? And this is a superhero who has powers from outer space, who uses a magic ring to conjure giant hands to punch people.  Most people knew this going in.  And yet, for some reason audiences were apparently expecting the gritty realism of The Dark Knight.

GL has never been one of my favorite super heroes. I don't like the "wish it and it will happen" nature of his powers. It's too much of a Deus Ex Machina - when you have a character that powerful, writers just don't have to work as hard. Heck, I don't even like the color green. So admittedly my expectations of the movie were low, and therefore easily met.  So for what it's worth, I thought the movie was a lot of fun.

There's a few minor spoilers ahead, so watch out.

Some of the reviewers complained about the special effects, but I thought they were beautiful. There were a couple of examples of Special Effect Failure - one of the Guardians of Oa looked like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, and Hal's head seemed to change size now and then compared to his costume - but overall I loved the look of the film. I recognized a lot of the other Lanterns from the comics and cartoons, and I was very impressed at how realistically they were able to render characters that looked impossibly silly in the other media. I loved GL's outfit. I know it was the subject of a lot of internet backlash when it was first revealed, but I think the end product was great. I loved how it seemed so alive, with little light pulses constantly running through the lines of the outfit, almost reminiscent of Tron.

Ryan Reynolds was perfectly cast. Some people don't like how he played the same immature jerk he always plays, but I personally believe that's how Hal Jordan is meant to be played. In the Golden Age of comics, a "man without fear" meant some square-jawed boy scout with a one-dimensional personality. But in the more realistic modern age, fearlessness means you're too cocky and smug to be afraid when you should be.

I was particularly impressed with Sinestro. Everything about him, down to the most subtle facial expression, was spot-on with how I always pictured him. I am a little disappointed, however, that they still called him "Sinestro".  Guardians, seriously, y'all are supposed to be some of the wisest creatures in the universe, but... his name is "Sinestro", you didn't see it coming? I was kind of hoping they would call him something else at first, and he would rename himself Sinestro once he got the yellow ring. Or at the very least, maybe they would give him a bit of backstory explaining how his name came to be.

With a power based on will, I was very afraid that the final confrontation would be some boring "Beam-O-War". You know what I mean, like in Harry Potter 4, when Harry and Voldemort have their wands locked. I was all set to see Hal shooting out a green ray, against an opponent's yellow ray, while both characters grunt a lot with the strain of their willpower, until Hal's finally wins out. I hate that kind of thing, as it's too easy to write, and not very satisfying on-screen. And then I heard that one of the villains was a cloud-like entity, and I was even more afraid. Having seen similar battles in Fantastic Four 2 and the first Hulk movie, I wasn't looking forward to such a vague battle. But the fights are actually pretty satisfying, with Hal using his powers in a lot of clever ways.

One of my favorite things in the movie was the lampshading of his so-called secret identity. Whenever Hal showed up with his little green mask on, I said to myself, "Oh, come on! There's know way they don't recognize him!" And I was right. Two people in the movie recognized him right off, not because he intentionally revealed his secret identity to them, but simply because they're not idiots.

I say this a lot, but I don't usually care whether a movie is bad or good, as long as it's not boring. Green Lantern did not bore me. But modern audiences must have higher standards than I do (and yet these are the same people keeping reality shows on the air). I think this goes back to my earlier blog about "All-Or-Nothing People": Since Green Lantern wasn't mind-blowingly excellent, then it sucked. People have lost the ability to rate a movie as "just okay". Unfortunately, "just okay" movies are some of my favorites.

Btw, I apologize for all the TVTropes links, but it's one of my favorite sites, and GL is a very tropey movie.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Wow, that's a long title. Sure, they're all "Harry Potter and the x", but the "Part 1" somehow sends it over the edge.

Anyway, great movie. One of the best in the series. Goblet is still my favorite, but this might be runner-up.

I was skeptical about making it into a two-parter. The whole idea just screams, "Our cash cow is ending, how can we extend the franchise?" But I have to say, I really enjoyed the pacing. Unlike some of the others in the series, it didn't feel like they were rushing through, desperate to squeeze in all the events of the book. It actually makes me wish some of the others had been two-parters. The movie did lag at one point, but it was at a point where the book lagged too. (Or maybe I just don't like camping.)

They covered a lot more ground than I thought they would. There were several times when an important scene would happen, and I would think, "Annnnnd... credits." And then the movie would just keep going. In fact, it probably ended a full hour after the first time I thought it was going to end. But this does not mean it was an overly long movie. It is long, as are all the HP movies, but it's a good kind of long. Seriously, I saw the midnight showing, and it's usually hard for me to stay awake for those. But Deathly Hallows had my unwavering attention all the way through. And when it did finally end, it really was a perfect spot. It really left us wanting more. (...and needing to pee.)

I'm pretty sure I've already said this in previous Harry Potter blogs, but it's pointless to review this movie. If you've seen the other six, you know you're going to see this one. Who sees the first six movies in a series and then just stops? If you haven't seen the others, then you should definitely catch up before buying a ticket to Deathly Hallows or you're just going to be lost. And even if you don't care about being lost, the dramatic parts are more meaningful if you're already in love with the characters. But pointless review or not, I give it two thumbs up. It's a must-see... if you've seen the others.

Now, a bit more detail for those who've already seen it (or at least read it)...

*Spoiler Space*














*Spoiler Space*

Of course this movie was the most depressing of the bunch. Everything is coming to a climax, people dying left and right, and of course it ends at one of the darkest moments of the story. However, most of the deaths so far have been presented in a somewhat tame way. Harry barely sheds a tear for Hedwig, and Moody's death is just a snatch of dialogue. However, it ends with the very dramatic death of Dobby the house elf. I think this was a good way of showing parents that from this point on, it's going to get very dark, so you might want to think about pre-screening Part 2 before taking your littlest ones.

I wasn't as touched as I should have been by Dobby's death scene. I've never liked him; to me he's the Potterverse's version of Jar Jar Binks. I don't understand how Star Wars gets so much flak for CGI slapstick, while Dobby is loved for basically the same thing. So I wasn't sorry to see him go. To quote Chandler Bing, "Yes, it was very sad when the artist stopped drawing the deer." But my heart isn't made of stone. Heck, I cried a little in the first few minutes of the movie, when Hermione had to erase her parents' memories.

The only part of the movie I really didn't like was when Ron became a jerk for a while. It made more sense in the book, but it happened way too quickly in the movie and didn't have enough context. But that's a tiny little nitpick when the rest of the movie is so good.