Random Thoughts: Disney Princesses(What I'd Like To See Changed About Em?)

Random Thoughts: The Spider-Man/John McClane connection

Usually during the holiday season I'd tend to have a christmas movie marathon and my first christmas movie of choice happens to be Die Hard. Die Hard is one of those kind of movies in which, to me, is a timeless classic that never gets old but what makes it even more special is watching it around christmas. As I was watching the movie I started to notice something that I haven't notice in awhile, how similar John McClane and Peter Parker actually are.

Lets look at a few main facts.

When the concept of John McClane first came up the character in actuality was originally supposed to parody action heroes like Stallone or The Ex-Governator. The actor they picked happened to be Bruce Willis. Before Bruce Willis became the action movie juggernaut that people currently remember him as he originally was a comedy movie star. Yes I was floored when I found that out. Blind Date was his most notable comedy film. When come time to play the role of John McClane his career really took off. So what started out as a joke ended up an inspiration for future action movies.

Peter Parker, like John McClane, didn't start out as your textbook superhero either. He didn't have the hero physique or the billions of dollars or the wonderful gadgets or super genius intellect. Peter is smart but he's more grounded smart, not like Reed Richards or Tony Stark who can make a suit of armor out of scraps. But he eventually ended up becoming the face of the Marvel Universe.

What they also have in common is that both of them are the everyman. They aren't billionaire playboys or invincible superheroes. Heck their origin stories didn't even involve them looking for supervillains to fight. It was just a case of being in the wrong situation at the wrong time.

"Story of my life"

In an essence they're actually wish fulfillment characters. John McClane represents the everyman who want to save lives even at the expense of their own life. Just like real life one doesn't get rewarded for it. However...

John McClane: You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah, blah, blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy.
Matt Farrell: Then why you doing this?
John McClane: Because there's no body else to do it right now, that's why. Believe me, if there were somebody else to do it, I'd let them do it, but there's not. So we're doing it.
From Live Free or Die Hard

Peter Parker represents the everyman who not just fights bad guys but also gets to hang around with the worlds greatest heroes and meets with some of the hottest heroines and yet he still gets crapped on. However

From Avengers: Earths Mightiest Heroes

They're the underdogs. In every sense of the word. They get the crap kicked out of them by every villain that comes in their path and they don't have corporate connections to pull them out of it. They also would get blasted by the media despite the countless lives they save yet through it all they pull through it and continue trying to save lives. Sometimes willingly and sometimes it just fall on their laps but they both continue to get the job done. While making a few wisecracks at the bad guys in the process.

Paul Walker

 

I remember when I first heard the news about it my first reaction was if this was someone's idea of a sick prank. I was proven wrong. It's one of those situations where it just shocks you to your core as your mind is trying to comprehend what it just discovered.

I'm not going to BS anyone and say the guy's my favorite actor but I admit that I have been starting to like his work as of late. Paul Walker to me is one of those guys who isn't really a bad actor, see Running Scared, but just doesn't have the right material for him to really showcase his talent, Running Scared again.

 My first time viewing him was in a movie called Varsity Blues. He played an all star quarterback who got injured and was replaced by the main character of the film. TBH I found Walker's character in VB more interesting as his character could have been written as a cliched jerk jock but in actuality he's more grounded and a pretty decent guy. That and he wasn't whiny like the main character. I liked him better in the Skulls, he plays the son of the main villain in that movie. His character in the Skulls I'd describe as not a villain but a more grayish type of character who could go either way depending on the situation. His character in the Fast and The Furious films isn't considered an all time favorite but when I looked at the character I see that he's actually the heart of the group. The glue that keeps the crew together. I thought his character arc was improving in the later Fast Films and was interested in seeing where it would go

While he's not considered my all time favorite actor I respect the guy due to his humble nature despite his celebrity status. He's one of those celebrities that you hardly hear a bad thing about, which to me is actually refreshing. Hollywood needs more celebrities like him.

Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Taking the comic book films out of the equation I'd put this up there with Pacific Rim when it comes to movie of the year for me. I thought the movie was a vast improvement over the first movie. The first things that won me over was how it showed Katniss suffering psychological effects from the events of the previous movie, she'd have panic attacks whenever she finds something that trigger her memories of the event or even have nightmares, even Peeta suffers the same effect. I like how they don't gloss over what the characters went through and go on about their day as if nothing happen.

The more I look at the movie the more I'm starting to see The Capitol as The Empire from Star Wars and President Snow is Palpatine. Some of the armor that his troops have on even resemble Storm Trooper armor. Then you have the ending, which I'll get to in a moment. But yeah I get the feeling that Donald Southerland is having a ball with his portrayal as President Snow. I also like the chemistry between him and Katniss as they both share a combination of hate and fear towards eachother.

What I also love about the movie is it's middle finger to reality tv. Cause really that movie shows how ridiculous reality tv actually is, minus the killing. So I like movies that uses that kind of take that. I also happen to notice a little nudge nudge wink wink towards shippers by the way the media and those watching seem to see Katniss and Peeta, that and celebrity power couples.

There were moments where I did get a little choked up and I like a movie where it can move you to a point that you become emotionally invested to the characters. The one character I had a gripe with was the Liam's portrayal as Gale. I had to roll my eyes at the touchy scenes involving them. Jennifer Lawrence however was trying. I thought the most powerful scenes were Katniss and Peeta's relationship with their respective mentors.

There were a few new side characters I enjoyed. For instance Phillip Seymore Hoffman's character won me over in his first appearance. I liked how, at first, it appeared that his character and President Snow was playing a game of who is the most evil. The three characters that really won me over were Finnick, Johanna, and Mags who were the previous winners of the games.

When Finnick was first introduced he came off as a jerk but I gotta admit he was a likable jerk. Then as the movie went on you start to see the character unravel. I was sitting there thinking why cant hollywood make more jerk character like Finnick? He was exactly what I wanted from a jerk character, sure around others he's obnoxious but he actually has a human side. One of them being was his relationship to Mags. Whom I also liked instantly when first introduced, she was the textbook example of a cool old lady. I liked Johanna due to her first introduction and she has a rather feisty personality, it's not one of those look at how feisty I am kind of personality as there is a reason behind it.

Coming into the second movie I knew it was gonna be a cliffhanger because thanks to Empire Strikes Back there usually is a cliffhanger in the mid portion of the trilogy. Speaking of ESB the twist and the ending actually seem to be influenced off of it. Heck most of the second movie seem to be influenced off of SW. It was a pretty good cliffhanger though.

Katniss kinda reminds me of Han Solo in that she didn't want any part of the war but would rather just survive the empire's tyranny yet something happens makes her want to join the rebel army. Speaking of Katniss the more I look at her the more I see her as a better role model than Bella Swan.

For one she doesn't spend each movie lusting after some guy and she is self efficient enough that she doesn't need to depend on some knight in shining armor to save her as she does a good enough job saving herself. Also the Hunger Games films doesn't revolve around some love triangle as there is a more deeper story.

There is one minor nitpick though. Ok Peeta had announced that him and Katniss not only were married in secret but are expecting child. Granted it was a fib but President Snow still had Katniss compete in the games. Taking it from a Evil Overlord List perspective putting a seemingly pregnant woman in a life or death contest wouldn't make ones image look good, especially one whose trying a villain with good publicity approach. The best option would at least be use means to disprove said claim and discredit the power couple.

Overall I say go see it, it's worth the money and the box office drawings.

A Look Back: Man of Steel

One of the most controversial films in superhero movie history. It is one of those movies that has splitted the comic fandom right down the middle. I've talked about the movie itself but right now I'm going to talk about it's more controversial nature from the movie's concept or the ending of the movie.

The Concept

I enjoyed it. I liked how they made Krypton look a little different when compared to the crystal palace version from the Reeves or the Smallville version as I've often wondered what the live action version of Krypton looked like when it's outside of a crystal room.

I thought the new suit looked nice, lets face it there are moments we'd question how one can take Superman seriously when he flies around with underwear outside of his pants. I also liked how the movie gave the suit a bit of a backstory.

The Superman in this one has more layers. Gone are the days of the perfect boyscout hero as this movie shows us a guy and his internal struggle of being the worlds greatest hero. There were moments where Clark angst but it's nowhere near as bad as say his Smallville version.

I feel what they were doing with General Zod, in this one he had a motivation that is beyond taking over the world because I can. I did like the warning.

However I still feel that Stamp's Zod was better though. While Stamp's Zod didn't have motivation he actually made up for it in being one of the most memorable movie villains in history. On a positive note,  Faora.

You want to talk about ensemble darkhorse she's so enjoyable that even the haters and trolls like her.

I had no problem with the fights. Lets face it people this is WHAT HAPPENS when flying bricks duke it out. Also we are not dealing with an experienced Superman that take a world of cardboard approach. I also like how the military was involved, a part of me wonders if the events of MOS would result in the creation of Cadmus. I can see Amanda Waller being one of those government agents that isn't 100% on Superman being the savior of the world.

I was never sold on Jonathan Kent, a part of me wonders if he did a good job in raising Clark or if he was holding him back. The only father figure that helped Clark move forward was his own father Jor El. Whom I thought was better than the Smallville version, especially AI Jor El.

The ending

 

TBH I never had a problem with Superman killing Zod as I understood the message it was trying to make. They took a bold approach in showing a motivation as to why Superman never kills. That and he did show remorse over his actions. Also nobody went apeshit in Superman II and IV and that Superman killed with little remorse. I know some fanboy would try to use the Donner Superman to support their argument but given the official cut made it in theaters that is considered canon. Also there is Superman killing Nuclear Man. He also went and let the villain family in Superman 3 die, where was that uproar?

Overall

MOS isn't a perfect movie but I did like that it was trying a bold and different approach instead of copying off of the Reeves films. The end results might not be favorable to some but to me I'm looking forward to where they will go with this.

That Guy With The Glasses

I've been a fan of the site ever since the first anniversary movie and have followed just about every reviewer on the site. Throughout the years I have watched just about every video the TGWTG crew have put up there are videos I've enjoyed and there are videos I don't enjoy and recently I find myself not that much of a fan of the site.

Granted there are still reviewers of the site that I do enjoy but I find myself rather distant from it and I'm going to give reasons as to why and also talk about some of the reviewers on the site.

Lately their jokes can range between either funny or juvenile and by juvenile I mean on Family Guy levels, the best example I can give concerning that are Phoelous and Nostalgia Critic, recently.

Phoelous
I've followed his reviews and the one review that I happen to find decent was his A Sirbian Film review. Not because of the humor but because it's one of his few reviews that actually portrays some decent emotion out of it. What I find irritating about his reviews is that he can come off as a douchebag. In his regular reviews outside of A Sirbian Film he comes off as the kind of guy you feel like you just want to punch in the face or tell em to STFU. Especially with the way he makes those faces whenever he says something condescending

Nostalgia Critic
I wouldn't go as far as to call him my all time favorite reviewer, Linkara is first and Nostalgia Chick is second, however I do consider him one of my favorite reviewers at the time. But the more I watch his later videos the more I start to see how stale he has became. Also I tend to get irritated whenever he'd try to force feed his Demo Reel crew into his recent reviews. That and the majority of the reviews now aren't even reviews of old movies. It just takes the nostalgia out of the Nostalgia Critic, if all he's going to do is recent stuff then shouldn't he be called The Critic instead? Also his high pitched screaming can get annoying if done constantly.

I do happen to like his Avatar reviews as it's as close to an honest review I've seen and he isn't doing the typical angry reviewer stick.

I find myself reaching a point where I don't take the guys reviews seriously anymore tbh. Yeah I know they're not supposed to be taken seriously given their style but they still try to come off as legit reviewers and would often credit actual reviewers like Siskel and Ebert as their inspiration. Having seen their material they don't come off like those guys, on their worst day, they come off as the posters one sees in the comic forums. And you know the kind I'm talking about.

For instance when The Dark Knight Rises came out just about the majority of the people on the site seem to hate it. I put it off then I started to notice something in the Man of Steel review and I noticed something thats rather similar to TDKR. When Doug hates something everyone on that site follows. You have a few exceptions but it seems that when the boss hates something they're inclined to hate it too. So lets say if Doug hates Avengers 2 or the Superman/Batman movie then do they have to blindly agree with him? It reminds me of when Alan Moore did a rant against Watchmen and just about every comic fanboy complained about how much the movie sucked, not because they've seen it to give that kind of a fair judgment but just because to kiss Alan Moore's butt. It's that kind of sheep mentality I don't really care for.

Another reviewer I don't care for is Blockbuster Buster. The guy comes off as a fanboy than a legit reviewer. Also the guy's often been accused of not doing his research when reviewing something. Someone had pointed out a few inaccuracies from his Revenge of The Fallen review. One thing I roll my eyes on is his view on how he finds that Dreamworks makes bad movies, the two Kung Fu Panda movies, Rise of The Guardians, and Megamind is among the many movies that proves his theory wrong. I do however like him better when he's reviewing fan films, that really should be his job right there as it's not often you have someone that reviews fan films these days.

There are some reviewers I do happen to like though

Nostalgia Chick, especially when Nella is involved. She's actually informative when she does her reviews.

Cinema Snob: I like his reviews on old exploitation flicks and just about any scene with his cats in em. As far as his non-Cinema Snob stuff goes I like his regular movie reviews but only when he's doing him solo or when it's with Jillian, who should have her own show. Outside of his other crew like Sarah and Jake I don't really are much for the other Snob Crew. Especially Dave.

Dave to me sounds like the equivalent of a bratty child that one sees at a supermarket or any store when reviewing a movie. This is him at his worst.

http://blip.tv/the-cinema-snob/midnight-screenings-carrie-6668872

It didn't make me not want to watch Carrie but it did make me want to press the mute button so I don't really hold his opinion in any high value.

Spoony: I know some people would think typical angry reviewer but to me when looking at Spoony's reviews he comes off more honest than your usual angry reviewer. Also he rarely gets angry in his reviews, he mostly does when it's something thats actually worth it.

Linkara: I AM A MAAN!!! Also I like his arc stuff and when he rants on a comic you know it deserves the rant it gets. That and while he also did say something negative about MOS I at least can buy that what he's saying was honest, not because The Boss, hated it.

Suede: He's one of the few people that comes off as a angry reviewer

Welshy: The guy can be funny at times and my personal favorite was his Braindead and Doctor Who reviews.

So yeah these are my thoughts. If you have any thoughts relating to this drop a comment or if you have a reviewer that you like or don't like then also drop a comment.

Remakes

Just three words....reel it in.

Has horror movies in mainstream hollywood declined so badly that they need to depend on remakes of a classic horror movie or a novel to get it out of the hole that its in? Just you know this isn't an attack on the Carrie remake that has already came out but just wanted to point something out. It really didn't need a remake.

I respect the effort that the two stars of the movie put out and the movie did look like it was trying, which is more than I can say for most remakes, however it still falls under the cash grab remake. A horror movie that mainstream hollywood decides to remake just for the soul purpose of putting butts in seats.

Carrie has been remade so many times that I actually felt that they were beating a dead horse by remaking it again.

There were some satisfying moments, the roaring rampage of revenge. Still doesn't ignore the fact that a remake wasn't needed but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a horrible movie since there was some effort put in but not enough to put this movie in the same category with other gems like John Carpenters The Thing or Dawn of The Dead because of the fact that it was scene for scene. It didn't really do anything innovative. You know, some would find this ridiculous but I don't care. Have Carrie's mom be a psychic and the two have a psychic showdown. Least that would have been a curveball.

I happen to get a hidden message to this. With the string of anti-bullying stuff going on one could confuse the Carrie remake as a anti-bullying propaganda film. Although it makes me a little concern with the message it's giving. Ok replace psychic powers in the movie with someone going on a shooting rampage. Yeah not a message I'd recommend with what has been going on as of late.

Would I recommend this movie to anyone? Only if you have nothing to watch but honestly watch Chronicle instead since thats the closest to a good Carrie remake I've seen.

Still mainstream hollywood, it wouldn't kill you to do something original. Especially since the foreign films are kicking your butts when it comes to horror.

Good vs Good

First off this isn't me hating the concept of good guys vs good guys because quite frankly, when done right, it can be a entertaining story. However I just want to talk about this topic because there are certain situations within this topic that I find irritating. So today I'm going to jot down some examples relating on the subject as to how a good vs good story can be really good and sometimes it can be wallbangingly horrible.

Wolverine vs Cyclops

Yes any comic fan are familiar with the story of how these two are at eachother's throats. To be perfectly honest, I find it overrated. The whole Wolverine, Scott, Jean love triangle has been told so many times that it has lost whatever appeal it had since the triangle started. Also it can get irritating when it starts to affect how either side leads the team and even put their own teammates in danger because Wolverine and Cyclops couldn't just stow their crap.

One of the things I liked about X-Men Evolution is that it didn't use the love triangle issue and it didn't have Logan and Scott at eachothers throats. Hell Logan even supported Jean/Scott. That alone in itself was refreshing.

Whats even sadder is that when Jean is dead and out of the picture instead of having Cyclops and Wolverine settle their differences they're still at eachothers throats and you know what that soon resulted in? Avengers vs X-Men.

It's like no matter what they do they always get in a fight over something that eventually ends up putting the whole team in jeopardy.

What I also don't really care for is that whenever Cyclops and Wolverine fight you hardly see Jean step in and put a stop to it. In honesty it just makes her look bad on her part. That and the sneaking behind Scott's back to make out with Logan doesn't do her any favors.

Also, if I'm wrong then pardons because it's been awhile since reading an X-Men comic, nobody has called either side out on their crap and the damage it's doing to the team. If I were one of the X-Men I'd get annoyed whenever Scott and Logan bicker over Jean and even more irritated when Jean just watch.

I'm glad that Marvel is the only company of the big two that has the decency to not do a reboot but if it comes a time that they do then pleeeease don't rehash an old tired story involving the love triangle. Why not try something innovative?

Civil War/Avengers vs X-Men

Ugh where to begin. You have one arc that pretty much was Marvel's equivalent of Identity Crisis but instead of a physical rape it metaphorically raped the characteristics of the Marvel Characters and almost destroyed what made them likable then on the other hand you have an arc that is basically Civil War II with both characters not learning squat from their previous experience.

The way I look at it Civil War was something that could have been settle if things were just talked out instead of one big "Lets all settle our differences by fighting eachother."

The sad thing about this is that despite who is right and who is wrong you have both leaders Steve/Tony and Scott/Logan/Steve again acting pretty childish in the whole conflict. And the storyline on each arc was pretty half assed to begin with. Which says something when Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 did a better version of Civil War than the comic version did, so did a fic called Not A Typical Civil War.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6470827/1/Not_a_Typical_Civil_War

Note: To fans of Maria Hill you might not like this one but keep in mind this was before Maria got developed into a well rounded character and I'd still recommend it to see another example of Civil War done right.

I'd also recommend this.
 http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8359430/1/Firebirds
What AvsX should have been.

What makes it worse is that it wasn't a villain pulling the strings. I would have accepted Civil War and AvsX if it had been revealed that a supervillain was manipulating the whole situation. But it didn't turn out that way. Instead we got something that could have been resolved with both representatives talking it out but ended up being the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks.

Amazons Attack

Linkara says it better than I could
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-1-and-2.html
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-3-and-4.html
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-5-and-6.html

What is it with DC's intent on treating the Amazons like a douche treating a homeless guy begging for change?

There have been some good moments from Good vs Good

Superman vs Flash

No actual fighting or someone getting hurt over it just two guys involved in a friendly competition. With Myxy manipulating things.

Grudge Match

1. Mind control was involved
2. Villain manipulating the scenes
3. They kicked villains butt after the mind control is done
4. SUPERPOWERED GIRL FIGHT!!!! SUPERPOWERED GIRL FIGHT!!!!

The Cadmus Arc in Justice League Unlimited

1. Villain manipulating the scenes
2. Heroes actually learning something and working to improve after said arc
3. Speed Force

It's also Civil War but done by a competent storyteller.

The Avengers
1. Villain manipulating the scenes in the first act
2. Heroes banding together after they learned they were manipulated.
3. Puny God

So what I'm saying is Good vs Good can be ok but at least have one villain manipulating the scenes and have the heroes in question learn and mature from that experience. Also you can do it in a friendly competition manner. Take this video for instance

Scott Pilgrim/Knives/Ramona: A Deconstructive Love Triangle

Scott Pilgrim vs The World

While I still don't consider the movie as a masterpiece like some people made it out to be I tend to notice some hidden storytelling elements in the movie. For instance the love triangle between Scott/Ramona/Knives.

Scott was dating a girl named Knives but at some point Scott was starting to feel dissatisfied with the relationship then wants to have a clean break from it. He then meets a girl named Ramona and this is where the deconstructive side of the love triangle comes in.

Scott Pilgrim isn't exactly the kind of person that any young woman should be involved with. When it comes to relationship issues the dude can be pretty wishy washy. But then again... his two respective love interest are just as messed up. You have Knives who'd go complete Yandere the minute someone breaks up with her and you have Ramona who'd use then toss away her boyfriends/girlfriend at the drop of a hat and has relationship issues that are as messed up as Scott's.

In your usual love triangle in this scenario theres the Archie archtype, Betty archtype, and Veronica archtype. Scott Pilgrim is the subversion of the Archie archtype in that when you look at him there really isn't anything about him thats likable. He has a excuse due to his past girlfriend dumping him and because of that it makes it hard for him to have a meaningful relationship. It still doesn't excuse the fact that he's willing to dump Knives for someone better. Ramona is the subversion of the Betty archtype due to the fact that she isn't some sweet homely girl that any normal person would be lucky to be involved with and she is singlehandedly responsible for the Seven Evil Exes tormenting Scott. Knives is the subversion of the Veronica archtype due to that she doesn't flaunt her family background to others, she comes from a family of ninjas, but when someone does her wrong she'd go Glenn Close on someone.

The message that I got from the love story is that when it all boils down to it that neither individuals are good for eachother since remaining together just hurt them even more. Knives did the right thing by ending things but Ramona and Scott ended up together. Happy ending???? Maybe to some but the way I see it whose to say Scott wouldn't get bored of Ramona or worse....Ramona dumps Scott then she continues the Evil Exes Cycle with Scott being the first of the Exes. Not a happy ending as one would think.

So in a way Scott Pilgrim vs The World actually showcase a more damaging side of the love triangle cliche. Maybe even the harem cliche when taking Ramona into consideration.

Does overexposure of your favorite character ruin your enjoyment of the character

I remember awhile back I was reading some of Movie Bob's video articles and I came across this one

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/6865-Enough-With-The-Batman-Already

Not that I agree with him but I even have reached that point long before the article came about. Think about this. What DC character has had more animated movies than any of the DC Characters? Batman. The only DC character that rivals him is Superman. When it comes to animated movies Batman has had more opportunities than anyother DC superhero/heroine. It has reached a point where people on message boards have voiced their irritation on how overexposed he is in the animation movie department.

Before the reboot there have been lots of comics featuring him. The guy has been on the cover more times than Wolverine, which I'll get to later. People even talk about how the character is getting top billing while Superman is the least popular of the two. Lets put it this way. Batman/Superman & Wolverine/Cyclops have some things in common.

The fans like Batman/Wolverine due to the fact that they both have dark and troubled past and that they're badasses and that they're chick magnets. Also they seem to play the mentor/ father figure role to teen hero characters. Meanwhile you have other people who don't care for Cyclops/Superman because they find the characters goody goody or dull or isn't dark enough like Wolverine/Batman. I remember a humorous nudge nudge joke Timm made during the Worlds Finest episode from Superman TAS where they toyed with a triangle involving Bruce, Superman, Lois. Of course that didn't stick but I got the joke. Still I bet there is some comic fan out there that would rather have Lois go with Bruce on grounds that he's more interesting than "boring" Clark Kent.

Another similarity is that it sometimes seem that whenever Batman and Superman paired with eachother it's Superman that plays second fiddle. Much like when Cyclops and Wolverine are paired with eachother it's Cyclops that plays second fiddle. However Bruce Timm actually managed to write Superman and Batman respectively while the ones who did X-Men Evolution managed to treat Wolverine and Cyclops respectively. I also liked how Cyclops and Wolverine was written in 90's X-Men. Wolverine gets to showcase his skills yet Cyclops showcase how badass he is also.

I don't think the overexposure of a couple of characters automatically makes them a bad character. While I'd sometimes avoid anything involving Batman and Wolverine like the plague I still like them since they're one of the main things that got me into comics. Just....give them a break already. I know they're cash cows but there are other interesting characters they can use. It doesn't always have to be about Batman and Wolverine. And for the love of God don't make every superheros personalities mimic theirs. Otherwise you'd have a pretty dull universe.

Trailer Review: Thor-Dark World

When I first saw the trailer I wasn't that impressed with it but I managed to give it a chance anyway and hope that future trailers can improve the movie. The year of superhero films have been rather mediocre for me with the disappointment that was IM3 and Kick Ass 2 and the mediocrity of MOS. The only fun superhero movie for me happened to be a Wolverine movie called The Wolverine.

I caught this trailer when I was watching Riddick and I thought the trailer not only provided an improvement over the first trailer but it also provide me a little ray of hope for Thor: Dark World. I don't know if anyone got this vibe from the trailer but I got a Lord of The Rings vibe from this. Especially when it concerns the battle scenes. From the looks of things the stakes are much higher when compared to the first movie. Which is good. I like that in each sequel the stakes get larger in comparison to the first and that it isn't falling for the same trap most sequels do by being similar just with a few minor differences to fool the viewers.

There is alot of speculation concerning this movie it seems. There is rumors that someone will die in the movie and judging from Thor's reaction in the trailer it's someone thats close to him. Some say it's Jane while others say it's Frigga. Here is my two cents on it..

I'm a little concerned for this because I hear that Sif's role might get extended in the sequel, normally I would be happy but it just turns out that she's reduced to a designated love interest to Thor. Sif deserves better than that!!! It also seem that Frigga is getting more involvement this time around and Jane could possibly take a level in badass. Now looking at these one can say women in refrigerators but I don't see that. Just because a female character gets killed doesn't always mean women in refrigerators. If the story and build is handled well then we could have something thats pretty moving.

I also have another possible theory. What if it's Loki? It's the classic villain redemption scenario. Loki does one final good deed by protecting one of the main characters and he sacrificed his life in the process. Some evidence to back it is that the actor playing Loki might not come back so he has an out.

There is another way to look at these theories. I know for a fact that it wont be either Jane or Frigga given the importance of the characters but I wouldn't put it past the movie to make the audience think it's them but someone else dies instead while protecting them. Also since we are talking about whats technically a disney movie you know that in disney movies dead doesn't always mean dead. So here is how I see these two possible theories happening.

Sif: She dies either protecting Jane or Frigga or both. Which provides Thor the motivation he needs to take down the big bad once and for all. There is a tear jerking and heartwarming final scene between Thor and Sif before she passes on. An interesting possibility I can see is that this could be a good way to introduce Hela. Sif dies but Hela claims her so that Sif can act as her agent of death. You just have one of the major plot points for the next movie. Thor tries to save Sif from Hela's control.

Loki: Loki does one act of goodness and you might get a moment between him and Thor. It would soon be revealed that Loki didn't really die but just went into hiding.

Hope Dark World is not only an improvement over Thor but also a fun superhero movie experience.

The Top Eight Writing Cliches That I Will Never Do(Warning: Some Graphic Imagery Inside)

I've been writing fan fiction for quite some time but I would also write some original works of fiction. I have seen some cliches in both fan fiction and original fiction that is just a giant pet peeve of mine and I swore that I would never incorporate it into my stories.

Right now I'd like to discuss the top eight writing cliches that I will never incorporate into my stories. There are alot of cliches that I wouldn't use but I'm narrowing it down to those that are my main pet peeve

8.

Mary Sues/Gary Stus

Having a character that is flawless and perfect can be a bit of a writers handicap. I like my share of an escapist character but one has to be careful in that it doesn't devolve into a boring invincible hero or a boring invincible villain. When I would do a character I would try to make said character not 100% perfect. Also we just love stories where a character would overcome harsh obstacles, not stories where" Oh another obstacle that a character will overcome with less difficulty".


7.

Tsunderes

Not really down with the whole double standard if a female treats a guy like crap it's ok cliche. Especially if said female ends up with the guy and made no attempt to make amends with how bad she treated said male character.  If you're going to make said Tsundere character end up with the guy she bulled then at least make some effort to develop her into a more likable character and have her atone for her actions against said guy she bullied.

6.

Damsels In Distress

In this current age you haven't been seeing that many characters that are created just to get saved EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. like you used to back in the day. While there are characters that would tend to get in a jam from time to time it can get irritating if their whole point of existence is to get into trouble and have someone get them out of it. Why not do something different by having a character, who is known to being a damsel in distress, learn from past experience and become genre savvy about it. Maybe have character set a trap for said villain. You know take a level in badass

5.

Women In Refrigerators

The plot element that involve the girlfriend of said hero getting killed in a pointless and unceremonious manner just for the sake of creating drama. The two worst offenders I'd say is Ultimatum and Identity Crisis.

Ultimatum

Janet got better

Identity Crisis

It gets worse

You know what makes this bad enough? It's a rip off of this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhvtzgxl0eQ

Two things that makes the original better.

1. Angelus didn't rape Jenny

2. There was a meaningful build to it, there wasn't anything that screamed cheap shock value.

Speaking of...


3.

Cheap shock valued deaths

Death happens. It's inevitable. But mainstream comics seem to turn death into a cheap gimmick to bring in sales. Death shouldn't be used as a cheap gimmick. It should be something that provides an emotional impact and change the characters or the world around it. For instance in the original Star Wars trilogy Luke's adoptive parents were killed by storm troopers and Obi Wan was later killed by Darth Vader. What made both scenarios impactfull is that it helped progressed Luke's heroes journey. If one uses character death, especially of a main character or main supporting character then have it provide some kind of impact.



2.

The Bully

You've seen this kind of character before. The one note antagonist to the main character that said main character must overcome. We are supposed to hate the bully character since the character's whole existence is to make the protagonist's life a living hell. However don't some writers ask themselves" What does a bully do when not tormenting the protagonist or why they are what they are or is there any part of them thats actually a decent human being?"

The one movie that actually deconstructs this cliche is The Breakfast Club since it shows characters who could be known as The Bully but are actually given layers during their time in detention and you actually get to see what made them become what they've become. I think the only character that wouldn't pass as a Bully in that movie is Brian.

1.

Pointless Rape Scene

To use a few quotes

"Take a good look at your story. Why do you think a rape is what you need for it to progress? Is there something else that could fill the same function? Unless you have a damn good reason to include rape in a story, you probably shouldn’t."

—Rachael Edidin, InsideOut 

 I know who I am when I'm saying this, but rape is possibly the worst thing one can do to another. Such an act, if included in a narrative, will bring it to a grinding halt. You have to respect your audience and address the issue directly. You do not diminish this violent act by making it the sidestory.

Bennett The Sage on the rape subplot in Doomed Megalopolis

This is perhaps the cliche that connects to the other cliches that I've mentioned. You want to make a villain horrible well there are more creative ways to do it. Also it annoys me when the act happens then the next day it gets completely ignored. The biggest offense is that the victims friends doesn't support the victim when said act happen, what happened with Ms.Marvel for example.

I also don't do the whole Rape As Comedy thing. Yes there are moments I'd laugh at the ridiculousness of the Rape As Comedy cliche but at the end of the day, especially when I'd write the scene I make it a point that. RAPE. ISN'T. FUNNY!!!

In CAU I had a situation where a male character got raped by another male character and that was not played for laughs. I did not show the scene in graphic detail but only it's aftermath and the character dealing with it. I still made a point in that the scene carries as much impact to not just the character but his friends around him. For instance it caused the members of The Order, a military group that the character is apart of, to have a more close bond than before and there is a moment where some even felt guilt over what happened. Outside of that I've never done a rape scenario, given the uncomfortableness of it.

If there is a cliche that you don't normally use when writing fiction or if you have some thoughts concerning what I wrote down then pop in a comment.

Honorable Mention

Character Bashing

There are characters I've hate but turning them into something worse than what they originally are is just lazy IMO. Why not take a character that you hate and make some efforts in improving the character for the better? For instance in a Buffy story I've managed to turn both Dawn and Kennedy into well adjusted characters. Also I've managed to make Loki a more trickster type of character, with some layers, when compared to his 616 version before character development kicked in.

Trailer Review: Robocop The Remake

Sometimes it's not good to be right.

It's ironic when looking at this as it was not too long ago that I've openly defended Ben Affleck as Batman, despite that I'm not completely for him as Batman. Usually I'd be all" Lets give the film a chance guys". But this.... I knew it was going to be fail the minute I've started hearing about some not too flattering changes. Making it PG-13 being one of them.

Do yourself a favor, just watch the original. It still holds up. I'd even go as far as to recommend Robocop 3 since that one at least has Cyborg Ninjas and I'd recommend it if you ever have some friends over and just need a movie to enjoy by poking fun at it.

You know what? Despite the crap I've given Kick Ass 2 the trailer makes Kick Ass 2 look like Avengers.

The Joker: How to make him interesting

Possibly one of the most critically divided characters in comics, some people love him and some people just want him to die. Me personally I don't really have a love or hate view of him as personally there isn't much about the character that could get me emotionally invested enough for me to either love or hate. Before I get things going I just wanted to get something off my chest....

This is by no means a rant blog. Just my personal thoughts concerning the character. If you like The Joker then thats cool but just remember that this is my opinion of him. And that opinion is, I don't find him all that.

To be fair there was a moment when I took interest in him, that was during the Tim Burton version of The Joker. Primarily because when compared to the other versions of The Joker that version at least had a motivation. Revenge. Revenge against his former mob boss that tried to double cross him and revenge against Batman in dropping him into a vat of chemicals. Which makes him somewhat of a tragic character as Batman tried to save him but couldn't. You also had his further backstory in murdering Bruce's parents.

Personally, I liked that bakstory, it was a nice little spin on the character and it made the situation between Batman and Joker even more personal.

The primary reason why I don't care for the character because of one simple answer. He does what he does for the lulz. Thats it. Granted there are some good characters that do what they do for the lulz but usually they ended up being one note characters. For a character thats as long running as The Joker you have to change the guy up or otherwise the character ends up becoming stale. You have to give the guy something to keep on going instead of staying with the same old routine.

Take Loki for example. After so many years Marvel finally gave him something to do other than antagonizing Thor and from what I've heard it's getting a positive response. His character arc as Kid Loki even made me care for the 616 version.

No matter how DC spins the story it's still the same old Joker terrorizes Gotham, Batman tries to stop him, Joker dares Batman to kill him, Batman gives some speech why he cant, he beats him up, Joker gets locked up, Joker escapes, rinse and repeat. You know what would make an engaging story?

Have Joker actually reform. I'm serious.

Now before you guys go on about say this would hurt the character and ruin what made him popular in the first place I say hey it's not the first time DC or even Marvel has done it with their villains so why shouldn't Joker get one?

Heres how I see it. Have him struggle with his reform. Also don't have people be so quick to forgive him. I can see him having trouble with people holding a grudge against his actions during his psycho clown days. Maybe resulting in him taking a few beatings from said people giving him a hard time, with the police refusing to help him. Maybe some scenes of him trying to hold down a job, with some awkward glances from customers and fellow co-workers. You can even build up to him trying to be a hero himself. Maybe more of a Jack Sparrow esque anti-hero but still a hero

The only downside is given the crap the character has done the only way this could work is if it were an elseworlds story.

Another possibility would be to give him some semblance of a backstory. Alan Moore provided a few hints in his Graphic Novel The Killing Joke. I think what would make a interesting story is what if Joker happened to be the son of the guy that killed Batman's parents? Think about it.

I also would like to see the environment change due to Joker's actions. For instance the law enforcement is forced to become more competent and the judicial system is making things a little more difficult for the Bat Rogues and the criminal underworld to bend the law in their favor due to Gotham cracking down on crime so it would be nice to see how he operates with so many disadvantages. Especially with the possibility that he now has the rogues and the criminals after him.

Ditch Harley: I'm not talking about scrapping the character but I am talking about scrapping the twisted romance they have. For one if you're seriously considering reforming Harley then don't have her keep going back to a guy thats treating her like crap. And another thing if you had to keep them together then this goes back to my Joker reforming thing. Have the two go through a bit of a reconciliation. Otherwise I really don't see the point in pairing the two.

Know his limits: With all the villains in DC I don't buy that he's the tip top villain in that universe since there are other villains that can easily kick his ass and kill him. There is a reason why he doesn't mess around in Superman's hometown or even Flash's hometown because they don't put up with him like Batman can. There is nothing wrong with making him competent but dont Gary Stu him.

Thats just my two cents on the subject.