400 Posts

Wow, 400 posts, what a milestone, i wonder what i should do to celebrate this wondrous achievement...*fart*

-Danny

The 33 - Trailer Review

The story of the 33 Chilean Miners stuck underground was one of the biggest stories of the year back in 2010, it was also one that thankfully had a happy ending. Shortly after the event, there was news of a movie in production based on the events and i laughed and thought "yeah, that'll happen". 5 years later, here we are, and i've got to say, it looks pretty damn incredible. I myself am a sucker for true stories with uplifting happy endings, as well as stories of brotherhood, solidarity, friendship, etc. This looks to be something right up my ally in that sense as the trailer shows us a lot of emotion from both aspects, the miners underground and the families above. Some people have been complaining that the trailer spoils the entire movie...it's based on a true story...from 5 years ago! Everyone knows this story, everyone knows how it ends, to complain that the trailer gives anything away is like saying it's a spoiler to tell you that the Titanic sinks, it's a known fact. Point is, this is a damn good trailer, it got me highly invested in seeing a movie that i initially mocked when it was first announced. The 33 comes out 13th November 2015 in the US with no UK release date officially given yet.

-Danny

The Marvellous Mircale of Ms Marvel

In 2014, Marvel launched a new comic book series titled Ms Marvel, following the stories of a Pakistan Muslim Teenager growing up in America. The series quickly took off and has become one of the most popular comic books in circulation, and me being included as someone who loves this series and considers it too be one of the best there is and one of the most unique. Though I have to be honest, I am incredibly surprised by the success of Ms Marvel, nothing to do with the story or art, but the purpose behind her existance. Kamala was clearly invented as a way to expand public interest in reading comics, with the popularity of the Marvel films at an all time high and a lot of new demographics wanting to read comics, Kamala is one of many characters that were created or reimagined for the sake of mass appeal. Which in itself is not a bad thing, there are plenty of cases where that has lead to a lot of great things (Robin being the best example of that). What surprises me is the near universal positive reception Ms Marvel got from both newcomers and traditional comic book fans. Comic book fans, like a lot of fandoms, will jump down your throat and scream their heads off should the creators attempt to differentiate from the norm for the sake of mass appeal, just look at what happened when they made Thor a woman. But no one has complained about Ms Marvel being used as a marketing gimmick.

The reason why I think this is, is because even though she has the title of an already existing character, Kamala Khan and Carol Danvers could not be more different people, the Carol Danvers Ms Marvel was different in every way, from personality, to race, to super powers, to relationships. Also Kamala has very different themes and stories behind her character, a lot of focus is given on her culture, relationship with her family and religion, but never so much that it feels like they've overbearing you with these ideas, but enough to make them feel present but not so much it feels like a gimmick. Also it's not like they're replacing Carol Danvers, she's moved onto being Captain Marvel.

The reason why people complained about Jane Foster's Thor and Miles Morales's Spider-Man is because they were replacing the existing characters and fulfilling a very similar purpose to the originals. Over time they've become more accepted, if anything i'd say Miles Morales is even more popular than Peter Parker right now. But Kamala Khan was different enough that she was worthy of being her own character and is still relatable to audiences even if they don't identify in the same classes as she does.

-Danny

This Is Not A Good Time To Be Sony Pictures

Oh Sony, you're such a good company, you're tech is great, you make some awesome videogames and television shows, so why is it that you fuck up so badly when it comes to movies? I mean, so badly. But i don't mean you've always fucked up, but very recently you've been fucking up. 2014 was not a good year for them, Amazing Spider-Man 2 was panned so badly they're now rebooting the franchise again, and that's just one of the flops, others include Robocop, The Monuments Men, Sex Tape & Annie. Yeah there were a few hits there like 22 Jump Street, Fury & The Equalizer, but none of them were the big money makers (Minus Jump Street). Then there was the whole hassle of The Interview being released or not. Finally the big scandal all of the e-mail hacks and having so many private documents released to the public, showing that all of the rumours and theories people made about Sony Pictures not having a fucking clue what they're doing, were all true. They're the stereotypical hollywood executives that care about nothing more than marketing and really have no idea how to make a damn movie. Then they ended the year with Amy Pascall getting fired, or quitting, one of the other, either way it's probably for the best seeing as she was really not good at her job and potentially a little bit racist.

Now we come to 2015, an even worse year for Sony in terms of movie quality and reception. Let's take a look at what has been released: Chappie, panned by audiences, mild box-office return, Paul Blart 2: Mall Cop, panned by audiences, mild box office returns, Aloha, panned by audiences, box office flop, Pixels, panned by audiences, box office flop. Everything else they've got coming out the rest of the year can pretty much go either way. Kitchen Sink, Hotel Transylvania 2, Goosebumps, The Night Before. All have the potential to be really good or really bad. The only two movies that are looking really good so far are Spectre and Concussion.

To be fair, a lot of studios release a bunch of films per year and a fair amount of them will bomb, but damn, this is two years in a row that Sony have been going on a losing streak and it ain't getting better anytime soon, you know what they've got coming out next two years? The Ghostbusters reboot, a Smurfs reboot, a movie based on Angry Birds and another based on Emojis...i don't see how this can get any better.

-Danny

Rocky IV - Cheap Thoughts

I've only begun watching the Rocky movies this past year in anticipation of Creed, and despite it being the least good so far from a technical stand point, the one that has stuck out to me so far is Rocky IV. Keep in mind i haven't seen Rocky V or Rocky Balboa yet, though I hear Rocky V sucked even worse. With that being said, Rocky IV is the 4th instalment in the Rocky franchise (Obviously) and it follows the story of Rocky and his former rival, now friend Apollo Creed coming out of retirement to fight against Ivan Drago, played by Dolph Lundgren. From there you get a whole lot of your Rocky cliches, Adrian being against Rocky fighting again, just to come around later, the training montage, the big climactic fight at the end and Rocky single handedly stopping the cold war, typical Rocky movie.

So what is it about this movie that makes it stand out to me? It's weird. Simple as that. A franchise that started out as the grounded and realistic story of an average schmuk like Rocky Balboa rising as the underdog and coming out...well, watch the movie to find out. Here we have a rich & famous Rocky with a robot as Paulie's servant and what is pretty much a supervillain as his enemy and-oh yeah-Rocky ends the cold war! Well okay I may be exaggerating that last point, but considering the movie is an America vs Russia story and the film ends with Rocky giving a big speech about change and working together, come on, the cold war metaphor is less subtle than the Jesus metaphor in The Matrix.

But the funny thing is, even with this being a complete betrayal of what Rocky originally stood for, it's just so fascinatingly odd that i can't dislike it, Paulie has a semi-sentient robot as his implied girlfriend, how do you react to that!? And you can't blame the movie for being cliched, because this is Rocky, the entire franchise is built on these cliches all the way back to the first one. Then there's Drago...god i fucking love Drago, he is literally a supervillain! All the prior Rocky movies had him fight against real people, Apollo Creed was his respected rival, Clubber Lang was a dick but still a person. Drago is like the Russian Captain America, he's been experimented on to be the perfect fighter, has barely any dialogue outside of "i must break you" and "if he dies, he dies" this isn't a boxer, this is a fucking Street Fighter character! He's cheesy, sinister and menacing, i fucking love everything about Drago.

The music is also insane. Rocky has always been known for having great training montages set to great music, Gonna Fly Now, Eye of the Tiger, they're all great, here we have probably the best Rocky soundtrack so far. Hearts on Fire makes for a great work-out track that can get everybody pumped, No Easy Way Out works similarly to get you excited but used in a different context in the movie, more of a reflective state oddly enough. Oh and a performance of Living in America by James Brown...again, this was a weird movie. But seriously, amazing soundtrack here,

The plot of the film is very cliched but again, it's a Rocky movie, you expect this, it's not the plot that people come for, it's the characters, the dialogue, the music, the montages, so it's not fair to criticise it in that aspect, atleast in my opinion. I will say the movie does throw a wrench into the plot halfway through which was...unusual. I won't spoil it, but a big change is made for one of the characters and it feels like a cheap way to cause character development and emotional change in another character, which is usually a no-no, having characters go through tragedy for the sake of other characters development is usually disrespectful to the former and cheap for the latter.

Overall, Rocky IV is a weird movie, it's absolutely jumped the shark but it's also fun as hell and honestly even though i know it's not the best Rocky movie, it's the one i want to watch again more than any other. I give Rocky IV a 7/10.

-Danny

Does Man of Steel Get Superman Right?

Man of Steel is one of those movies that everyone is divided on, cinephiles, Superman fans, regular movie goers, pretty much everyone has an opinion on it. Today I want to talk about one specific element of the movie, Superman. So forget about any problems or praises you have with the story, the themes, the visuals, just focus on Superman, is he a faithful adaptation? Or a new spin entirely? Do they get-him-right?

Superman is one of those heroes that a lot of people have begun to dislike these days because they say he's not relatable. To that I say: Nah. Superman is supposed to be the story of a god becoming a man, he has so much power that he's destined to do something with it and he chose to be a symbol of good, to inspire people to be better and be a real symbol of hope, that's why he doesn't wear a mask, because he wants people to trust him. Superman is the guy that always believes in second chances, that the system can work and there is good in almost everyone. But that doesn't make his life easy, he is constantly having his ideology challenged by others, he is in a constant struggle of balancing the line between man and god and despite his best efforts, he knows he can never save everyone. Anyone that says Superman is over powered is someone who thinks you can solve all of life's problems by punching them. Superman is more than that, but is the Man of Steel that?

Now i'm going to be giving Henry Cavill's version some slack because he's a very young Superman who only just took on this role, so he hasn't entirely figured out what type of hero he's supposed to be or what his role is. With that being said, Cavill's Superman does maintain a lot of the traits of the traditional Superman. For one thing he doesn't see himself above the law, when Zod demands Kal-El turn himself over, he does it without hesitation and without resistance, he follows the military's rules, is always polite and even though he's the most powerful person in the room, he never acts like it. He also does decide on his own faith as being a symbol of hope, even down to the S meaning Hope (Boy, that was stupid). Admittedly they may through the Jesus Symbolism in too much, but i've talked about that in a prior post. Another thing is the fact that Clark Kent is a mama's boy, which is evident here considering that when Zod threatens Mama Kent, Clark tackles him like a speeding bullet and beats the living snot out of him, classic Superman.

Something in this film that a lot of people have a problem with is the destruction of Metropolis and how many people die as a result of the fight between Superman and Zod. This is something that people seem to get wrong, first of all, no one dies as a result of Superman's actions, he doesn't put anyone in danger and isn't responsible for the destruction around him that does cause people to die, that's all Zod's work. If you're going to complain about Superman not going out of his way to make sure the destruction doesn't hurt anyone, he's fighting General Zod! He's not exactly giving him an opening to go help people! And if you're going to complain about the amount of destruction, casualties or not, i think it's been made pretty clear in plenty of other story lines (Justice League cartoon & Superman Vs The Elite spring to mind) that Superman doesn't give a damn about collateral damage.

Something I do have a problem with is when Superman destroys the ship carrying the potential future for Krypton, Zod tells him "If you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton!" which Superman responds "Krypton had it's chance!". This is a very un-Superman thing to say, he's supposed to be the perfect mixture between the two, he's proud of his roots and respects their ways, the people on that ship aren't guilty of any crime and they don't pose any threat. Superman would find a balance between the two, and if he did have to make the sacrifice, he would do it with a heavy heart, this Superman hesitates for a few seconds and then quickly decides to doom his own species. Which is made even worse considering how much he would have loved to have more people like him.

But then there's the final point that a lot of people seem to be split on, killing General Zod. Again, a lot of people think this is a very Un-Superman moment...and they would be right. Superman is supposed to be a symbol for truth, justice and hope, show the best that humanity can be, and killing people is not part of that ideal. But like i stated, this is a young Superman, he doesn't know entirely who he can be, and even more so, he had no other choice, Zod put him into an ultimatum, they both knew there was no other end to the fight, one of them had to die, after all, what are you gonna do? Put Zod in jail? No cell can hold him! He was backed into a corner and he made a tough choice, and you can see that it did have an effect on him, he's clearly shaken up about having to kill Zod and they can use this as the catalyst to why he doesn't kill from now on, because he knows how bad it feels to take a life in the first place.

So in the end, no Man of Steel doesn't have the perfect representation of Superman, he's a little too mopey and he hasn't fully worked out who he's supposed to be, but he's new to this. For the most part they got him right, i don't see any major problems that contradict the character of Superman, in this version or any other. I like this version of Superman, he's not my favourite but he's good and I look forward to seeing where they'll take the character from here.

-Danny

What Mass Effect Characters AREN'T My Favourites?

I've talked a lot about Mass Effect and my love for it and it's characters, i have done multiple entries in my 'Favourite Characters' Series based on their roster, but that doesn't mean all of them are going to be appearing on that list and this is my opportunity to talk about them. Now i'm only talking about the main characters, the crew of the Normandy, and it doesn't mean I don't like these characters, i do, i'll explain more as i talk about them.

Kasumi
Kasumi has a lot of great qualities too her, she's funny, has a great loyalty mission and is good at what she does, but she's a DLC character, meaning she has very little interactions with Shepard or the rest of the crew, and those interactions are what shows how great a character is and I imagine Kasumi would get along with the others. The big problem here is that she's too passive of a character for me to get that engaged in her story and the fact that she can be lifted out of the game with no difference is what pulls her down.

Zaeed
Similar to Kasumi that he's too passive of a character, but even in the interactions he does have with Shepard, i don't like it. He's too selfish, rash and aggressive, if I was Shepard I would never let this douche bag onto my team. What makes me like him is he's great to have during gameplay, but as a character, i dislike him a fair amount.

Javik
Javik is the only DLC character that actually feels like he's engaged in the main story, maybe that's because he was supposed to be but EA made him day one DLC (Fuck you EA). Even though Javik does play a significant role in the game and has a great backstory and philosophy, he's also boring to take into battle and his personality doesn't really change throughout the game, yes he finally comes to terms with the death of his species but he still gives your entire crew the cold shoulder a lot of the time.

Ashley
I don't think I even need to explain why Ash isn't one of my favourites because she's not anyone's favourite, she's racist, whiny, obnoxious and is always giving you crap, like nothing you can do is good enough for her, she acts like she has no reason to trust you despite you being the hero of the galaxy and she constantly berates other much cooler characters in the process.

Kaiden
But with that being said. Even though Ashley has a bitchy personality, at least she has a personality. Kaiden is more of a blank slate than Shepard is, having no real character or personality behind him and he's pretty much just a lap dog. Except in Mass Effect 3 where they do a 180 by making him kind of a dick, mostly just so he and Ash will have similar narratives and also he's bisexual...well that came from nowhere.

Jacob
Jacob's nice, i liked his loyalty mission and his moral conflict with what he does, but the problem is that it's solved way too quickly in ME2 and from then onwards he plays almost no role, and that includes ME3. Even your romance with him turns out to be entirely pointless as he will marry another woman no matter what you do so...yeah, he didn't really add much.

EDI
EDI has a lot of things going for her, her relationship with Joker, her development from ME2 to ME3 and she's fairly useful in battle, but with that being said she is still an AI, while she learns to adapt to human behaviour, it's still just the basics, preventing her from creating her own unique personality and a lot of the time it feels like her actions are based on what she believes others would do, not what she would do because she doesn't have enough of a personality to know what she would do.

James
I like James, he's loyal, a good fighter and the relationship between him and Shepard is really good, almost like a mentor-student type thing, I also enjoy how he personalises every relationship by giving everyone nicknames. But with that being said, James was created as a surrogate for any new players into the trilogy...for the third instalment. It may just be a case of not getting to spend enough time with him, but our relationship with him in comparison to everyone else on the crew feels pretty weak. Maybe if we got another game with him then i could connect to him more.

So those are the Mass Effect characters that won't be appearing on my 'favourite characters' series, which means anyone who wasn't mentioned either has been or will be featured at some point.

-Danny

Fuck You Cinime

As someone that goes to the cinemas very often, it has made me realise how fucking obnoxious some people could be, so if you are someone who: talks, brings a baby, claps, comes in a large group or insists in sitting exactly where the ticket says making other people move despite there being multiple free seats around you (seriously, who does that!?) but the worst thing without a single doubt is PHONES. It doesn't matter how dim you put the light, what angle you position it, how quickly you use it, if you get your phone out in the middle of a dark theatre, everyone can see it. Every. Damn. Time. Now I don't have a problem if you keep your phone on as long as it's in your pocket and on vibrate, but if you're getting it out to text, check the time or anything that's not an emergency, you deserve to have a pirahna shoved down your pants, you cunt.

That brings me to Cinime...Whenever I go to the theatre, there is always an advert for an app that you can use to play along with the advert and you can win special prizes. Three things: One, your challenges are insanely easy, two, your adverts are obnoxiously long and Three, STOP ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GET OUT THEIR PHONES! I don't care if it's just an advert, i don't care if you remind then to turn it off afterwards, encouraging people at any point to get out their phones in the cinema is stupid! Because if they do it once then what's to stop them from doing it again? And Again? And Again!? So fuck your app, fuck your company and fuck your shitty adverts you piece of shit.

-Danny

Wait, Ben 10's Getting A Reboot!?

Ben 10 was a show that I watched as a kid and I very much enjoyed it, but who knew that Cartoon Network was going to turn this into their Spongebob and milk it for everything it's worth? Ben 10 ran from 2005 to 2008, a fairly decent length of time for a cartoon, it had a simple yet enjoyable story and a satisfactory conclusion. Then it got a sequel series known as Ben 10: Alien Force, which was good, but not as great, then we got Ben 10: Ultimate Alien, which was so similar that I don't even understand why it counts as a new tv show. Finally there was Ben 10 Omniverse, a show I never watched because...well i can't use age as an excuse, if that was possible i should have stopped watching around Alien Force, but point is I never watched it, so i have no idea if it was good or not. Point is, a simple kids show about a boy who can transform into 10 aliens somehow became an intergalactic superhero who could transform into like 30-40 aliens (kinda ruins the point of being called Ben 10).

Finally, in 2014 the show ended and we could all finally move on with our lives...except now Cartoon Network are rebooting the show from the beginning, which will most likely lead to another 3 sequel shows. Basically they beat a dead horse, brought it back to life just the beat it even more. Is it me or does Cartoon Network have some serious co-dependency problems? I mean not just now, but they've always had that, most people agree that Dexter's Lab and Johnny Bravo went on way longer than they should have, Adventure Time has been around since 2010 with no end in sight, and now they're rebooting Ben 10? Yeah they're rebooting Powerpuff Girls unnecessarily, but at least they waited 10 years before bringing that back, this was less than a year from when the show ended to being announced for a reboot! The show started 10 years ago and now they're trying to milk it for another 10 years? Cartoon Network needs to learn that sometimes letting a show run for 5 seasons or less is a perfectly valid option, except for Ed Edd 'N' Eddy, that show never should have ended.

-Danny

What Defines A Movie As Timeless?

One of the biggest compliments you can give a movie is to describe it as timeless, basically meaning that even generations from now, people will still be praising it the same way they did in times gone by. But what exactly defines a movie as timeless? I mean there are plenty of movies that though still talked about today, that could be a number of reasons. Taxi Driver for example is a dated movie, but i don't mean that in a bad way, it's set in New York City during a time when New York was considered a giant scum bucket, it's story and characters are molded by what New York was like, nowadays, while not a perfect city by any means, it's gotten a lot better since then. So even though everyone loves it and it will be talked about for decades to come, can you really call it timeless?

There are tons of movies like this that we look back on either as a reflection of an archaic society or just nostalgia for the tropes and styles of that time period, take Back to the Future for example, if that movie was made for the first time today, it would be a completely different movie due to the changes in the industry and social norms, i.e. a teenage boy hanging out with a strange old man who then invites him to go to an abandoned location in the middle of the night, alone, is really creepy. But that can be said about every movie, if Fantasia were made for the first time today, even if it was still drawn by hand, used the same music and the same stories, it would still look different and the context surrounding a movie's release date would still affect how people view it. People looking back on a movie with the context of it being released affects people's judgement of what's acceptable, this is one of those movies that would be both heavily criticised and praised if it were released today. But sometimes they don't have to make the whole movie timeless, just certain elements. To Kill A Mockingbird for example is one of my all time favourite films, though it clearly was filmed half a century ago and is set even further than that, the message and commentary the film holds still rings true to this day (Sad, i know, but true). That's what makes it timeless, and while that is part of what makes it good, that's not the whole thing, even if the message wasn't relevant, it's still a good message, especially for the time period it was made, combine that with great characters, direction and performances and you have an outstanding film.

So the idea of a film being timeless doesn't really effect how everlasting your movie is, it's certainly a compliment and shows how strong your film is, but sometimes the idea or learning more about historical values or feeling nostalgic for a bygone era is enough to make your film, ironically, last forever.

-Danny

The Good Dinosaur & Spectre Trailer Review

Don't really have much to say about these two seperately, but together i have...enough. The Good Dinosaur is the new Pixar film (Yes, we get two this year, woohoo!) based around a young Apatosaurus named Arlo who teams up with a cave boy named Spot as the two travel together to get back home. So it's a boy and his dog type story except this time the animal is the boy and the human is the dog...interesting. Now the big thing to say about this trailer is OH MY GOD it looks beautiful, i am constantly blown away by how good Pixar movies look but seriously, that shot of the lizard looked real to me! Also this movie looks like it's bringing the feels, hell, the trailer brought the feels. The Good Dinosaur will be released 25th November 2015 in America and 27th November here in England.

And then there's Spectre, the new James Bond film, a franchise i haven't seen any of except for the Daniel Craig films, I know that Spectre is a big part of the James Bond franchise and a lot of people are excited to see them return but i don't really care. Skyfall was a really good movie, this film has an excellent cast, especially Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista as the villains and it seems to be a return to classic Bond silliness. As for a specific plot or character relationships we got very little, but still i prefer it that way. Spectre is to be released 6th November 2015 for the US and 7th October 2015 for the UK.

-Danny

My Favourite Characters - Liara T'Soni

Back to talking about Mass Effect. Liara is a 109 year old Asari scientist who has a keen interest in archaeology and an ancient race known as the Protheans. Throughout all three games, Liara goes through massive character arcs and emotionally scarring tragedies, all of which she turns out better for. In Mass Effect 1 when she's first recruited by Sheppard she has almost no social skills or understanding of other species behaviour, having locked herself away for so long to focus on her studies. But that doesn't make her a stick in the mud, as introverted as she is, she is easily excitable at the idea of learning more about the protheans, finding Vigil, a Prothean A.I. lights her up like it a child at Christmas. Despite this there is still plenty of development for the character, her relationship with her mother was strong when she was a child but eventually the two became stale with one another and now they fight for opposite sides, in the end Liara is forced to kill her own mother and it's that moment when she becomes invested in her cause to prevent further harm and truly becomes a crew member of the Normandy.

Then in Mass Effect 2 she plays a much smaller but equally prominent role in her own development. 2 years have passed since the previous game and being on her own, she has become a successful business woman, but it has also made her cold hearted and cruel, just like her mother without Sheppard there to guide her. In the DLC 'Lair of the Shadow Broker' when her and Sheppard are able to work together like they used to, Liara becomes much warmer and caring, like who she used to be, now having a perfect mixture between the vicious fighter and the caring companion. Also the banter between her and Sheppard is hilarious in this DLC. Her relationship with Sheppard is one of the greatest things in Mass Effect, whether they be friends or lovers, it warms my heart every time, and even though I consider Thane's romance with Sheppard to be the most important, the relationship with Liara is most natural. The two have excellent chemistry and support one another, while most other relationships it's Sheppard supporting the other, there's a clear balance in this case, Sheppard relies on Liara for help as much as Liara relies on Sheppard. The love between the two feels genuine, she sees Sheppard as a noble hero and Sheppard sees her as a brilliant scientist. The two trust each other completely and are always there to protect one another, no matter what.

That being said, I wish her relationship with the other crew members was as strong, though she does have some good interactions with them at times, for the most part she feels rather disconnected from her fellow shipmates (Except for Javik of course). I would have liked to see more interactions between them and have some more individual relationships have developed. It makes sense in the first game because she's so introverted, but by the time the third game came around, I would expected some changes.

Speaking of Mass Effect 3, this is where Liara is made absolutely perfect. She hits the perfect balance between awkward scientist to badass warrior, she's as good with a pistol as she is with a microscope. More so than that, now having taken on the role of the Shadow Broker, she has an army of informants at her finger tips, knowing everything and anything she wants. But her true skills as a warrior come from her Biotics, able to create force fields, singularities, warp, levitation, pull, throw, Liara is the most powerful Biotic on the team and is a force to be reckoned with. All of this in despite of her age, because in Asari years, Liara is barely even an adult, yet she's achieved more than most could dream of. Being part of the crew that saved the galaxy and being there from the very start, always having your back, always there to give you advice, to share the beauty while it lasts and having a back-up plan just in case. She went from someone who was baffled by humans to someone who admired them and their need to appreciate life while they can, a lesson she took to heart and it is how she lives her life everyday. She is one of my top 5 favourite characters in Mass Effect and one of my all time favourites.

-Danny

How To Write Spider-Man

Spider-Man to me, is the superhero, he's my superhero, he was the superhero i was obsessed with as a kid, i watched all the episodes of the 90's cartoon as well as Unlimited Spider-Man, the New Animated Series & Spectacular Spider-Man, I played the PS1 and PS2 games, watched the movies, hell, the Ultimate Spider-Man comic was the only comic i read as a kid. Spider-Man means a lot to me, yet despite the multiple adaptations, there is yet to be that one Spider-Man adaptation that I see as the perfect representation, Toby Maguire's version holds barely any of the traits that I see in Spider-Man and even though I heavily praise Andrew Garfield's portrayal, i now see more flaws with it than before. With a new Spider-Man franchise coming to the big screen within a matter of years, i have no idea how Tom Holland is going to play the character, but to be fair, the comics and cartoons have screwed up the character plenty of times. Now this is in no way a definitive list of what everyone's version of Spider-Man should be, this is just my interpretation and how i personally see the character. So let's begin.

The first distinction to make is the difference between Peter Parker and Spider-Man, Peter Parker is the awkward and socially inept nerd that couldn't get a date to save his life, regardless of the fact that he's a superhero, he is still a teenager. This is the key factor that Maguire got right and Garfield got wrong, Peter Parker is a loser, through and through, he has skills, he's very talented, but he's got almost no confidence and will always revert back to who he was before having powers whenever he's around someone from that time period. With that being said, Peter is intelligent, he's a genius, he's also kind hearted and stands up for the right thing, super powers or no super powers, no matter how much he's bullied he won't stay down for long. The mask isn't what makes the hero, the powers aren't what makes the hero, it's the spirit that does.

Then there are his relationships with people, the only people that he's fully comfortable around is Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they raised him and have always loved and respected him for who he is, even his relationships with Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy, there's always that social stigmatism that he's not good enough for them, whether it be physically or emotionally. With Harry he's intimidated by him, there was a point where he always had to rely on him that made him uncomfortable, and eventually that would turn into tension due to the role Harry's father would play as the Green Goblin and then Harry himself. Something that all of these relationships have in common is that Peter hates to rely on other people, he prefers to be able to solve issues himself, he will turn to others for assistance, but if he's not the one doing most of the work then he feels guilty, the worst thing Peter can feel is that of uselessness, when there's nothing he can do to help.

A lot of people mock the idea of 'Great Power Comes Great Responsibility' simply for how broad of an ideology that is and how it can be applied to pretty much every superhero. But look at what is means for Peter individually, Peter initially uses his powers for selfish gains, to get money, to impress people he likes and embarrass people he doesn't. The loss of Uncle Ben is the catalyst that moves him to use his powers for the needs of others rather than himself, some superheroes are born with that ideology (Captain America for example) but others learn it, if you use your powers for personal gain, you will eventually experience a personal tragedy. This is one of the reasons why I hate the storyline 'Spider-Man No More!' which was expanded upon in 'Spider-Man 2' the idea of Peter choosing to give up on being Spider-Man goes against the entire ideology of the character, yes, life is hard, he has to make a lot of sacrifices for the sake of others with little reward, but that's his burden, he didn't choose to be bitten by a spider, but that's the life he has, he knows that, what really shows his strength is that he is able to burden it and keep on moving, having Peter give up being Spider-Man, just to become him again fairly soon, not only is a really pointless story because it doesn't challenge the character but it goes against what he has based his entire existence on. I believe every superhero has that one rule that you must never mess with or else you go against the core of the character. For Batman, he never kills, for Hulk, he fears his own strength, for Spider-Man, it's that he never gives up, no matter what. Take a look at 'Death of Spider-Man' for how he should be portrayed, even in the face of death, going up against all his enemies with a bullet hole in his stomach, Peter fought till the bitter end, and even though it cost him his life, he saved his friends and family, and he wouldn't have it any other way.

When it comes to actual crime fighting, Peter's main objective should be making sure as many people are as safe as possible, that is always his main objective, and not only that, he will work with others, yes he prefers to go in things on his own because that means less people will be at risk, but he's not so stubborn that he won't acknowledge that he can't always do everything by himself, as long as he is doing most of the work, he won't say no to a bit of help. And don't forget, Peter is incredibly intelligent, even while fighting he usually has 3 or 4 different thought patterns going on in his head at once, one thinking of making sure other people are safe, one calculating a strategy on how to fight the bad guy and the last one coming up with his next one-liner. Which is another thing to point out, Spider-Man is supposed to be funny, when Peter puts on the mask, that's when he can be who he wants to be, the real Peter, when he's Spider-Man, he is oozing with confidence, he always has a joke up his sleeve, he will try and look cool but probably look goofy still, but he will own it. Something about Spider-Man that I think it would be interesting to toy with is his stance on killing. A lot of superheroes are against the idea of killing because obviously that's the wrong thing to do, but if that's as far as their stance on killing goes, it would actually be interesting to see how Spider-Man would react to something like that. We know why Batman would never kill because that's the only thing that separates him from his villains, he knows how painful going through a loss can be, he's supposed to be a symbol of incorruptibility and he worries that he wouldn't have the will power to come back from an experience like that. Green Arrow firmly believes in avoiding killing when possible, but when it comes to a life or death situation, he's not afraid to take a life if there's no other option. But Spider-Man doesn't have a personal reason to kill, now don't get me wrong, i'm not saying he should kill, but if you wanted to experiment with the character, this would be an interesting topic to discuss, it doesn't go against the core of the character and in the end you can give him a legitimate reason why he doesn't do it. Superman in 'Man of Steel' committed murder and (hopefully) they'll use that as the catalyst to why he doesn't kill, because he's done it first hand and he feels disgusted by it.

Next are his relationships with his fellow superheroes, especially The Avengers, and considering that Peter is still going to be a teenager in the new movie, this is something important for him. Peter idolises The Avengers, they're his superheroes, in particular is Captain America and Iron Man. Peter Parker admires the scientist in Tony Stark, but Spider-Man admires the undying heroism in Captain America. Tony Stark is a genius scientist who has made billions in his life, has been able to help people globally and all without a mask, a life that Peter Parker would love to live, he could do good without putting him or the people he loves in danger. But Steve Rogers is America's boyscout, there's no denying that his intentions are always pure, he will never give up and is a good role model, the exact type of hero Spider-Man wants to be. There is always that contrast there, he wants to be the best of both heroes but isn't able too, he has to be one of the other, but in reality he doesn't have to be either. He in reality inspires them just as much as they inspire him, his everlasting optimism, his success as an individual and his passion for what he does helps to make them better people as well, keeping them grounded, making them realise the people they save have faces, that they have a purpose and puts things into perspective. You can see more of this in 'Ultimate Fallout: Spider-Man No More' to see just how much Spider-Man meant to the world. But with that being said, Spider-Man is not suitable as an Avenger, he can work well in a team with them when needed, but the idea of being told when to do something and what to do and having to give all of his secrets to a team and they keep secrets from him is not a system he can live by, he's too free spirited and doesn't need someone telling him when someone does and does not need saving, he doesn't believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, Spider-Man is always there to help, there is no problem too small.

As for the balance between his personal life and the life of a superhero, this is something almost every adaptation seems to get right. There is always going to be that struggle between trying to have a happy life of his own and trying to be a superhero who is always there to save the day, his personal life will suffer because of it but in the end, I always see that the life of a superhero is more important than the personal life, because again, Spider-Man never gives up. But something that I don't quite understand is his desire to keep his secret identity, I mean I understand keeping it a secret from the public and too an extent I understand keeping it hidden from his fellow superheroes, but why keep it a secret from his friends and family? His logic is that if people found out his identity it would put their lives in danger, thing is, the bad guys find out his identity anyway, his family's lives are in danger and he rescues them. But surely he can tell his family about his identity, it would make them more sympathetic and understanding of his situation and they would acknowledge the risk of being with him and be able to decide for themselves if it's worth the risk, and then when they get randomly attacked by a supervillain, it won't seem as random anymore.

So to sum it up, here's how Spider-Man should be written: Spider-Man's greatest asset is that he never gives up and will always try and save as many people as possible even in the face of death, his greatest fear and weakness is that of ineptness, nothing will make him feel more emotionally crippled than the idea of him being unable to help in anyway possible. Those are the two key features to Spider-Man, not his intelligence, not his comedic nature, those are the cosmetic features, the heart and soul of Spider-Man comes down to his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.

Recommended Stories: Spider-Man (2002), Ultimate-Spider-Man (Videogame), Spectacular Spider-Man (2008-2009), Death of Spider-Man (Comic), Ultimate Fallout: Spider-Man No More (Comic), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014).

-Danny

Steven Universe First Impressions

This isn't really a first impressions seeing as i'm about 10 episodes into the show by now, but considering each episode is only 11 minutes long, that's pretty much just 5 episodes, and considering the laid back tone of the show and lack of explanation, you have to watch a fair amount before understanding the universe (Puns!) of this show. Steven Universe follows the story of Steven Universe, a young boy gifted with a magical gem that he inherited from his mother, it contains what seems to me unlimited power but has no idea how to use it, so with the help of several other gems, Garnet, Amethyst & Pearl, he slowly learns to use the gem and help the gems save the world from all sorts of creatures. So there are two things straight off the bat that i can heavily praise this show for, the first one being the designs of the characters and the environment, the character designs are incredibly creative and look amazing, the backgrounds are detailed and ecstatically beautiful, though the designs of the human characters are rather dull in comparison and they look like they could be from any cartoon show really. The other thing being the role of the gems, they're not human, they don't even seem to be mortals, and they are each powerful and flawed in their own ways, Amethyst is strong but rash, Pearl is smart but paranoid, Garnet is strategic but too agressive. Each one has different lessons to teach Steven and for themselves to learn. I will say each episode has a good moral to teach without feeling forced, for example, the realisation that only some of your ideas will work, while others are bound to fail, i haven't really seen a show look at things from that angle.

Steven himself is a likeable character, he acts a lot like an actual real kid and he does make mistakes that he needs to learn from, but he's the one that finds a way to fix them which is important, if your character makes a mistake and someone else has to fix it then the lesson doesn't sink in as well because they're not the ones who have the deal with the consequences. In terms of stories, they've all been rather simple so far, not good, not bad, what does stick out to me is the imagery, who would have thought that ideas like "a mascot suit being brought to life" and "a body of cats" would turn into such creepy and graphic monsters with no actual gore. The voice acting is...unusual. I watched an episode with a friend and she said the voice acting came across as very strange, which it does, no one sounds the way you would expect and some lines of dialogue they choose to deliver in strange ways...but at the same time it kinda fits with the tone of the show, everything is unusual, including the performances, so i can see why it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but it doesn't bother me all too much, I can get used to it.

Overall, in terms of how first impressions go, the show is...fine. It's cute, it has nice characters and colourful designs, the jokes in the show are okay, but there's yet to be a gut busting joke and the format the show currently has isn't something that appeals to me, i prefer the story arc style of shows, which i'm told this series does eventually go along those lines, but i haven't gotten there yet. In comparison to other cartoon shows on right now, it's a fine one to watch, but it's nowhere near the best (That would be Gravity Falls in case you're wondering).

-Danny

Ex-Machina - Cheap Thoughts

Ex-Machina is a film that was released several months ago that everyone praised as already one of the best films of the year, and of course that came with the backlash of people saying it was overhyped and just ok, i'm yet to meet anyone who straight up hated it, which is good, but nevertheless, i went into this film skeptical, i heard all the praise and backlash, so i was able to go in open minded, and i have to say...it's ok. Ex Machina follows the story of Caleb, a coder for a massive internet company called Bluebook (This film's version of Google) who wins a competition to spend a week at the private estate of Nathan Batemen, the creator of Bluebook. However, there's even more to it, and Caleb has been chosen to test an Artificial Intelligence named Ava to see if she could pass for human. However, as time goes on, Caleb begins to get suspicious that not all is as it seems.

The film offers a lot of good ideas and conversations of humanity, identity, sexuality, art, etc. It's a very smartly written film and the dialogue is very engaging, likewise, the scenes where Caleb and Ava are talking and trying to learn more about each other are very interesting to watch, if anything i wish the whole movie was just about watching Ava learn to be more human. However then when the plot begins to unravel and tries to have twists and a dark undertone, it becomes too convoluted for me, i much preferred the contrast between the simple and charming scenes with Caleb and Ava and the intelligent and thought provoking scenes with Caleb and Nathan. There are also multiple scenes and character traits that seem to go nowhere, including a scene where Caleb makes himself bleed, and the character of Kyoko for being rather pointless. The shot composition is beautiful, but there's only so many ways that you can film the exact same location before it starts to get boring to look at. The actors all did an excellent job, some people have complained that Domhall Gleeson's character is very basic, though to be fair i feel that's more within the writing than it is his performance. On the flipside, people praised the hell out of Oscar Isaac's character who i found to be the more basic character, he felt like someone who i had seen too many times recently on the big screen. Alicia Vikander as Ava was excellent, the subtle nuances and how she delivers her lines, always walking the line between human and robot, someone with emotions, but still learning how to express herself.

*Spoilers Ahead*

The ending of the film I very much dislike, they establish this idea that Ava is simply tricking them by pretending to be simple minded but is really using them so she can escape, which is exactly what she does, she kills Nathan (fair enough seeing as he was going to kill her) and then leaves Cabel there to die...that's something i don't feel is right. Just because they set up that she can do this, doesn't mean she should. They could have said that a giant pink elephant was going to show up and do a performance of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, just because they set it up doesn't instantly mean it makes sense. Ava clearly wants to be more human, that's something that she wasn't lying about, and leaving an innocent man to die who was trying to help you seems like a very inhuman thing to do. The movie tries to put in too many twists unnecessarily, people going "i knew you were going to do that so i did this!" and then the other person responding "well i knew you knew i was going to do that so i did this!". It's just not needed, a small story of an AI learning to be more human is engaging enough, you had a lot of good ideas going for you and you're making it more convoluted than it has to be.

In the end, Ex-Machina is excellent about 50% of the time, the other 50% is still good, but has glaring problems. I'm giving the film a 7/10.

-Danny

Should The Doctor Ever Be A Woman?

When it was announced that Matt Smith was retiring from Doctor Who, one of the big debates on who should replace him was whether or not The Doctor should be played by a woman. Basically, here's how it goes, technically speaking, yes, The Doctor can be a woman. The Doctor can regenerate into any race, gender, species in existence, yet somehow The Doctor has regenerated 13 times and still comes out a white male (Age varies and sexuality up for debate). So we know that they could, but then there's the topic of whether or not they should. I asked my dad about this and he said no, because that's just the way The Doctor is, this is how they've chosen to portray this character for so long, it's not a choice anymore. Which is a fair enough point, but at the same time, there aren't really any character traits that have The Doctor tied down to any gender, each actor has played the character differently, some are more childish, some more aggressive, some confident, some clumsy, some are ladies men, others couldn't care less. The only traits that carry over from Doctor to Doctor is that he is very smart and very brave. I've said this before but to me, The Doctor is everything, The Doctor is whatever you need him to be, he can be your relatable hero, he can be your god, he could be admired and he can be feared, and if the time comes where what we need him to be is to be a her, then why the hell not? As long as they get a good actress who can talk 100 words per minute, make scientific jargon sound like gibberish and can walk into a room and instantly own the place, then that's The Doctor to me.

Honestly I started this piece expecting to say "no, and here's why" but i ended up convincing myself on why it would work. Damn I'm good, or just very suggestible, either way.

-Danny

Comic-Con 2015: Deadpool Leaked Trailer

Even though the Deadpool trailer is going to premiere in several weeks from now, it was a comic-con news story so time for me to talk about it. This Deadpool trailer provided everything needed for the character, Ryan Reynolds is perfectly portraying the character of Deadpool, though to be fair did anyone doubt he would be great in the role? The dialogue of course feels like classic Deadpool, it's vulgar, immature and mean spirited, i wouldn't have it any other way. I love the fact that the eyes move under the mask, it's something we haven't seen before in a comic book movie, in comic books, the eyes still move even under the mask, but obviously that wouldn't work in live action, but when your movie is going to be as silly as Deadpool, the moving eyes can still work. But then again, the whole costume is perfect, i don't know what it is but it's just the most perfect looking adaptation of a superheroes costume, when i look at it, i don't see this film's interpretation of the Deadpool outfit, i see Deadpool. However I have two issues with the trailer, the first one being the awkward tone at the start, almost as if the film is trying to take itself seriously, i mean i know it's pre-Deadpool but even still, it looks too serious for it's own good. Then there's T.J. Miller, who I like as an actor and a comedian, but his sequence in the trailer follows one of the most annoying cliches in modern comedies, multiple punch-lines. He sees Deadpool's face without the mask and they make several jokes about what his face looks like, so many shows and movies these days do it and it annoys the shit out of me, just pick one punch-line and use that, using several at once is unnatural, repetitive and annoying. So those were my opinions on the Deadpool trailer, i very much look forward to this film, being released 12th February 2016 in the US and 5th February 2016 in the UK (Fuck yeah!)

-Danny

Gravity Falls 'Tale of Two Stans' Review

Gravity Falls is back! Finally! And it's back on an actual schedule of a new episode every 2 weeks. In this episode we see the return of Stan's brother, Stanford, and the Stan we know is actually Stanley, with so many questions needing answered, the two give us their backstory from when they were kids, to when they had a huge falling out to the origin of the journals and eventually how Ford came to be stuck in an alternate dimension. On one hand, i may have set myself some impossible standards for this episode, after such an amazing cliffhanger episode followed by months of waiting, i was super excited to see what answers we would get, while the episode works well, it just feels...underwhelming. I expected something new and different but this is the type of story that i've seen done a dozen times before, it's still done well here, but even so, i wanted something more original. Event that I could probably forgive if the episode was funnier but i didn't find myself laughing all too much, which is a shame because Gravity Falls is one of the funniest shows on television.

J.K. Simmons as Ford is excellent, i love Simmons as an actor and the fact that he is now a recurring character on one of my favourite shows is awesome. I will say i am glad Ford is sticking around, we still have plenty of questions and mysteries that need to be solved, the new equilibrium established with his presence is going to have a massive effect on the story from here on out, it also sets up a possible future rift between Dipper and Mabel, where she is worried that the two of them might end up like Stan and Ford, liking each other as kids but hating each other as adults. But apart from that, I sadly don't have that much to talk about, there wasn't anything in the episode that was bad, but there also wasn't that much that was great about it. I probably just set my expectations so high that they wouldn't be able to meet them, but i just wanted something more. I'm giving Tale of Two Stans a 7/10.

-Danny

Comic-Con 2015: Suicide Squad Leaked Trailer

I hate having to watch leaked trailers, i don't understand why studios don't release them once they're leaked, especially at comic-con, of course they're going to leak! Nevertheless, let's talk about Suicide Squad, one of the most interesting superhero films coming out. In this teaser trailer we didn't get much new except for some more stuff of Harley Quinn and Joker, which fair enough is what people (including me) are most anticipating with this film. I'm a little disapointed that it doesn't seem like Harley is going to have a thick Brooklyn accent, but then again we got less than 10 words out of her, but it's a staple for her character. While Jared Leto looks great so far, while Heath Ledger was an anarchist, this Joker looks like he's going for full psychopath, which i'm very excited for, i like his look, i like his voice, i'm iffy on his laugh, but nevertheless, he's a phenominal actor, i'm sure he'll kill it in this role. Apart from that, we didn't get anything else in terms of story or even any of the other characters, but then again this movie is 13 months out, can't blame em for keeping the story under wraps. But then the visuals aren't much to touch upon, mostly because it's a leaked trailer, the visuals aren't really in the best of conditions to talk about them in any detail. Overall, it was a solid first trailer, it gave us what was needed and what was expected, i liked it.

-Danny

Comic-Con 2015: DC TV Universe News

DC is still killing it at Comic-Con, now we have some new TV news to discuss. Let's take this show by show. Firstly with Arrow we have a new suit, which hopefully means he will finally be called Green Arrow. The suit itself looks cool, it looks more like armour than the old uniform and closer to the Arrow uniform in the comics. Then we have casting news, Neal McDonough is officially Damien Darhk...I have no opinion on this, he's a good actor, i know nothing about Damien Darhk. Two more characters who are confirmed but have not been cast yet (Who I also know little about), is the villain of Anarky and Mr Terrific, who will be be partnering up with Felicity. Marc Guggenheim has also confirmed he "happens to be gay" which I imagine the main reason they decided that is so people would stop shipping Felicity with every damn male character.

Then we have Flash, plenty of news we can talk about here. The first and biggest news is Teddy Sears will be playing Jay Garrick, aka, the original Flash. I'm very excited about this, mostly just the idea of another Flash being in the show, even though Jay Garrick is my least favourite of the Flashes, still a good character, but compared to Wally West or Bart Allen, i'd prefer it if Barry teamed up with one of them. This goes along with the announcement that the villain of season two will be Zoom, another speedster, so two speedsters going up against another speedster sounds awesome. Though I wonder what role Zoom will play, what made Eobard Thawne such an interesting villain was his personal connection to Barry, so i wonder what role Zoom will play. Then finally there is Shantel VanSanten as Patty, Joe's new partner at the police department who is infatuated with Meta-Humans and has a huge crush on The Flash.

Finally, Supergirl has a new villain, Peter Facinelli has been cast as Maxwell Lord, a genius billionaire who blurs the line between hero and villain. It's too early to know if this is good for Supergirl or not because we still don't know enough about Supergirl to make a judgement call. What's the tone? What's the story? I dunno. But that also means i'm not against the casting which is a good thing.

So overall, it's been a good comic-con for DC for both movies and television, we got an awesome trailer and some new information for TV. Weird how we didn't get anything for Legends of Tomorrow seeing is porbably going to be it's only chance to appear at comic-con and it's a new show so it would need the publicity.

-Danny

Comic-Con 2015: Batman V Superman Trailer Review

People have been saying that DC needed to bring it for comic-con this year, seeing as this is the last comic con before the film comes out, i think they did a good job. The first trailer set up a tone, an idea, but didn't give us much of a plot apart from at some point, Batman and Superman are going to fight. Here, we get...some more in terms of plot. Honestly i'm glad the focus of these trailers does seem to be the ideas behind the characters. Batman and Superman and their opposing ideologies and their personal stake in everything. Superman is now an established being on Earth but humanities reaction to him is still fresh, and he didn't exactly make the best first impression, a man who has the power of a god, is as dangerous as it is promising. Though i shouldn't get too drawn in, Man of Steel offered us similar ideas in analysing Superman and we didn't really get that. However, the idea of Bruce Wayne being there in Metropolis when it was being destroyed brings an emotional core to the fight scene in Man of Steel that it didn't have, rather than making the citizens of Metropolis feel like bowling pins, they're actual people in the middle of a disaster of 9/11 proportions.

While Batman in here looks more like Batman than any other version of Batman, the way he moves looks fluid enough that it seems like he can actually fight in that damn suit, but seriously, that suit looks incredible, whether Affleck will be able to pull the role off (He has my support) one thing is for sure, this is the best visual Batman we have ever seen realised on screen. As for the role he'll be playing, the only new information we got was the Metropolis scene, again, making the story much more personal for Bruce Wayne. Also the Joker/Robin reference was incredible, mostly because we don't know if it's Robin yet, but an old suit with "hahaha joke's on you Batman" so that is most definitely Joker.

We got a good look at Wonder Woman in action, granted it looks like her shots were all taken from the same scene, but i will say, for the first time so far, I feel like I am looking at Wonder Woman. When Gal Gadot was announced, I wasn't convinced, when we saw her in costume, I wasn't convinced. Even though we literally only got a few seconds of footage of her and no dialogue, so i could be completely wrong about this, but seeing her in action and her body language made me think "that is Wonder Woman". Lex Luthor has always been a risk, Jesse Eisenberg wasn't anyone's first choice, and while he still has that...Eisenberg-ness about him, that does go along with Lex Luthor's style. Luthor has always been a villain who is equally sinister as he is camp, he is over the top and deadly and is able to make flamboyancy so evil. This so far looks like he has that, he manipulates the powers on all sides to have them converge on each other, and with the line "the red capes are coming" is just the icing on the cake.

So that was the Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice trailer, it looks promising, it is my most anticipated movie of 2016, it will be released 25th March 2016 worldwide.

-Danny

The Simpsons 'Homer's Phobia' Is It Awkward?

It's strange how a show that is so timeless and also ahead of it's time back in when the series was in it's prime...but then there's this episode. Homer's Phobia has Homer befriend a man named John, at first they get along very well, until Homer realises that he's homosexual and suddenly is incredibly uncomfortable with his presence. But to make it worse, he begins to fear that Bart may be becoming camp and gay. On it's initial release the episode received positive reviews, especially for it's commentary on homophobia. Homer representing the traditional views of a dying society while Bart is part of the more accepting, post-modern generation. The episode also received praise for it's portrayal of John, he's certainly camp but doesn't succumb to flamboyant stereotypes. By the end of the episode, Homer does learn his lesson, accepts John for who he is as well as the possibility of Bart's homosexuality.

...But on the otherhand the fact that the focus is given to Homer, a character who we usually are meant to side with, being the antagonistic one, yet for the most part we're seeing things from his perspective. As a kid I always thought the episode was antagonising homosexuals, as if it was a bad thing to be gay. So even if the show does point out Homer's immature and archaic attitude, i don't think it was presented in the best way. Too much attention is given to Homer's attitude with little analyses on why he has that perspective, and not enough focus on explaining why he's in the wrong. Also when John says "I earned your respect, and all it took was saving your life, now if every gay man could do the same, you'd be set" which makes it seem as if gay people have to earn his respect and adapt rather than Homer have to alter is views and not let his prejudice affect other people's lives. Maybe it was just me who interpreted in this way, but i just find this episode incredibly awkward to watch.

-Danny

Goosebumps - Trailer Review

Goosebumps is one of my earliest memories as a child, being frightened by the TV Show and enthralled by the books, but at the same time watching it now and i realise how over-flowing it is in 90's decor, iconography and even just the simple writing style, but also how unscary the stories are. When I heard the initial concept of the Goosebumps movie I was ecstatic, then the announcement of Jack Black as the author R.L. Stein got me even more interested, combine that with the author's constant praise of the production of the film and you have me sold on the movie without seeing a single frame of it. The film follows the story of a teenage boy moving into a new neighbourhood who's next door neighbour happens to be Goosebumps author R.L. Stein. After accidentally opening one of his Goosebumps books, all of the creatures in his stories begin to come to life and the group have to seal them all back inside.

Just think about how original of an idea that is, not from a narrative stand point, but a pre-production stand point. In a society obsessed with recapturing the nostalgia of 90's pop culture, a Goosebumps reboot was all but guaranteed, but rather than just remaking the famous stories of the franchise, they create something entirely new with the source material and really think up a plot outside the box. If anything this isn't really based on the Goosebumps stories, but the opening of the Goosebumps TV Show. Pleasing the nostalgia driven audiences of the 90's as well as getting the approval of those seeking something creative and original, reimagining the plot into something different. Even if it is drawing comparisons to Jumanji, it's still a unique twist on the idea.

It remains loyal to the initial tone and ideas of the books and show, with the author's approval and with Jack Black in the lead, my excitement for this film is holding steady and i cannot wait to see it this October.

-Danny

The Citizen Kane of Something

You often hear a really good product get described as the Citizen Kane of that medium. For example, The Last of Us has been called the Citizen Kane of videogames, or Watchmen the Citizen Kane of Comic Books. What they're saying is that these products are so good that they could be argued as being the best product of that medium, the new standard of quality and everything will now be compared to it...but that's not what the description means. Citizen Kane is not something I would personally describe as the greatest film of all time, however, i would describe it as the most influential film of all time. The cinematography, the editing, the lighting, the pacing, everyone in some way is copying what Citizen Kane did, whether they intend to or not, it so much that was different for the time that movies these days just take for granted. So next time you compliment something by saying it's the Citizen Kane of something, take that into consideration.

With that being said, what are the Citizen Kane's of other mediums? Let's start with the youngest of the mediums, videogames. Videogames have only in recent years had enough leg to stand on and claim themselves as high art, while some would still disagree with that statement, they're mostly those who are unfamiliar with the medium. So is The Last of Us the Citizen Kane of gaming? Who knows. It's possible, it broke a lot of boundaries, but whether or not that's going to influence everyone else to make games like that is too early to be said. What about Mario then? Well Mario was one of, if not the first game to leave a massive impact on culture, but on a more internal spectrum, i would say it's influence was limited in both time and technology, it was a period where what you could do creatively with videogames was just simply move left to right with differently coloured characters. As time has gone by and potential has expanded, games like Super Mario Bros have become less common, so maybe it isn't as influential as people would think. Or maybe Gaming hasn't hit it's Citizen Kane yet, it is only 30-40 years old and only recently has begun achieving higher praise as an art form, but there is one game out there that could have a solid argument behind it, one that's old enough to have seen it's influence, but experimental enough to stand out from the crowd. Metal Gear Solid, a franchise with heavy focus on narrative, character development and professional voice acting, as well as experimental and creative gameplay mechanics that we see the lasting impact to this day, not just on it's own genre, but gaming as a whole. It fulfils the criteria that i've designed and many would agree with me on it's influence and ingenuity, and as of right now, i can't see any game topping it.

What about comic books? ...It's Watchmen. I'm not gonna argue against that, it's a genius piece of work that analyses it's characters, it's genre and it's form, it's intelligently written, unique for it's time and multiple comic books and graphic novels since then have tried to replicate the success of Watchmen. It's the comic book that showed that comic books could be smart, could have ideas, could influence and provoke conversation while still telling a fascinating narrative, regardless of the message. It wasn't the first comic book to try and have an intelligent moral, and it wasn't the first to succeed. But when I think of a comic that changed the game for comic books since, Watchmen is the one that I would go too.

Television is much more difficult to decide, videogames, films and comic books can be compared because there is usually a continuous narrative or theme driving them that is unlikely to change. Television is much more of a gamble, most shows will see a massive change the longest it goes on and adapts. Don't get me wrong, other mediums will see a change or growth in their narratives and ideas, but they're usually planned out from the beginning. Television, it's unknown where they could end up, take for example the show Supernatural, it started out as a dark drama and ended up as a satirical action comedy, it adapted for the times and responded to criticism from it's audience. Other mediums don't have that opportunity to adapt as they go along depending on how audiences feel about it. So saying which one above all else influenced an entire medium to adapt to their style when they themselves would have needed to adapt is difficult to pinpoint.

So there ya go, those are my opinions on the idea of using Citizen Kane as an adjective when describing another product, it should really be a once in a lifetime compliment so next time you want to use it, think carefully about that.

-Danny

My Favourite Characters - Spike Spiegel

Cowboy Bebop is one of the most stylistic and engaging animes of all time, it's without a doubt the coolest anime there is, but the ice cube of coolness is the protagonist Spike Spiegel. Set in the year 2071, Spike is part of a small team of bounty hunters, not looking for glory or a challenge, just enough money to get by. Spike is a very reluctant and lazy character, when he's not on the job he's taking a nap or complaining about his fellow crew members. But that's who Spike is, he's a laid back and very relaxed person in almost every scenario, whether he's sat around on the ship waiting for the next job or in a gun battle where the smallest mistake can lead to death, he takes it all without flinching or a hint of fear. He always has a witty line up his sleeve, a cigarette waiting to be lit and a kick with your name on in. Spike is a master in hand to hand combat in a similar style to Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do, a flexible body with a feminine walk, he moves as fluidly as water with the force of a boulder. As well as an expert marksman with his pistol for when he's too impatient to fight them head to head. Not to mention his skills as a pilot are unmatched to the point where he could make Han Solo jealous of his manoeuvres. The final point to make on his coolness is the voice, famous voice actor Steve Blum has stated multiple times how he considers this the role that gave him his big break and it's no wonder why, very few people would have a voice cool enough to portray this character, almost every line of dialogue said by him could be stapled as his new coolest line.

*Spoilers Ahead*

But what would a cool character be without a tragic past? Spike was a promising gangster of the Red Dragon Crime Syndicate, but after falling in love with a woman named Julia, he faked his death so he could leave the syndicate, but things didn't go as planned and he remains a wanted man by the syndicate. Spike lives by the philosophy of immediacy, he sees life and death as one and the same and he wouldn't be able to tell the difference until his time comes, thus he lives life by a day by day basis, never fears death and feels no obligation to anyone or anything. On one hand it could be seen as a tragic way to live, he doesn't consider his life to have any worth or see himself as anyone important, but on the other hand it also gives him a sense of freedom and joy knowing he only has the responsibilities he assigns himself. All coming to a head in the finale where he faces his old past and takes on the entire Red Dragon by himself, knowing he will be killed in the process, or as he puts it "i'm not going to die...i'm going to see if i was ever alive" and in his final few moments of life, rather than the show playing it out as tragic or sympathetic, Spike's in a state of bliss, having an answer to his philosophy and finally feeling catharsis for how he's lived his life.

Spike is without a doubt the coolest fictional character that I have ever seen, he's cooler than Han Solo, cooler than Tyler Durden, cooler than Batman. But on top of that he still has a unique philosophy and character arc to make him complex and worth analysing, and despite all this, he would still just call himself a humble bounty hunter. See you space cowboy...

-Danny

Why Does Disney Hate England?

Disney has made some damn amazing movies in their time, they have an insane amount of money because of it and they have movies that can appeal to all demographics. So someone want to tell me why we keep getting the short end of the stick when it comes to release dates!? Apart from Frozen, every Disney movie for some reason takes forever to make its way over to England. Here are some examples: Wreck-It Ralph, US Release Date: 2nd November 2012, UK Release Date: 14th February 2013. Big Hero 6, US Release Date: 7th November 2014, UK Release Date: 30th January 2015.

It's not just with their own films that they do this, but with Pixar as well, take the new Inside Out, US Release Date: 19th June 2015, UK Release Date: 24th July 2015. I don't understand why it takes so long for them to be released over here in England, they have the money and the fanbase so what's the hold up? Do they think British people don't want to watch Inside Out as much as Americans? I understand pushed back release dates for smaller films but this is friggin' Disney, what the hell is going on with them that we have to wait this long to get any of their material?

-Danny

Batman: Arkham Knight - The Psychology of Fear

*Spoilers Ahead*

One of Batman's most defining characteristics is that of fear, his control over Gotham's criminals relies on the fact that they are afraid of him and this is one of the key themes in the Arkham Knight videogame. Scarecrow is planning on destroying Gotham, his main weapon is manipulating people's fears, he is able to get the majority of the town to abandon Gotham by the simple means of a threat. Fear can make a person do crazy things, it can make them desperate, aggressive and idiotic, Scarecrow knows this and he prays on it, our fears show us our greatest weakness, if he knows your fear, he knows your weakness. So here we have our contrast, two characters who use fear to manipulate their enemies, but Scarecrow has the upper hand cause he knows what Batman's fear is, losing the people close to him. It was established in the previous game, Arkham City, that Batman does let his love for others cloud his judgement, he was willing to save Talia over the lives of others, let the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Scarecrow uses this to his advantage, threatening, kidnapping and at one point convincing Batman that he had killed those close to him.

I've always found Batman to be a stubborn character, he often rejects help from the people he trusts and never gives an explanation why other than saying that he can handle it, which i do believe is true, but it would be a lot easier to have Robin or Nightwing there to help him. This game gives more information by tying it together with the story of Jason Todd, the second Robin who was kidnapped, tortured and then killed by the Joker, a tragedy that to this day, Batman sees as his greatest mistake, his greatest fear is that happening again to someone else he loves, which Scarecrow is able to exploit with the help of Jason as the Arkham Knight. So the idea of using fear against a hero who relies on fear as a weapon is really intelligent and very well handled.

But then there's another layer to The Batman's fear, Joker. Throughout the game we see Batman's psyche slowly dissolve and give into The Joker's toxin from the previous game, eventually taking over The Batman and becoming more dangerous than ever before. The Batman's true greatest fear, letting The Joker win. But then the game takes it in a new twist that i never really thought about before, if Batman's greatest fear is The Joker...what's Joker's greatest fear? It's honestly a thought i never thought of before, Joker always seemed like an unbreakable character, so what is his greatest fear? Being forgotten. Now that may sound like a very identifiable character trait, but really it's the idea that Joker didn't create enough chaos to be remembered. During the final psychological episode where The Joker finally takes over, Batman then turns the tables on him, now he's haunting his thoughts and revealing his greatest fear. Joker can't live without Batman, but Batman can live without The Joker, his true death happens when Batman finally let's him go, he doesn't fear him anymore and he truly has left no everlasting impact, on Gotham, on Batman, on anyone. It's an interesting analysis that I haven't been seen covered by many other formats and gives me a new perspective on the Joker as a character and his relationship with Batman.

-Danny

Romeo & Juliet...But With Dragons

American Dragon is an animated television show that ran on the Disney Channel from 2005 to 2007, centred around Jake Long, a teenage boy who can transform into a dragon at will and is his duty to protect all magical creatures in New York, while also maintain his regular social life as a teenager, think Spider-Man meets Avatar: The Last Airbender. The show has a lot of good things going for it, it's creative, well written, the animation is...debatable, but overall it's a good show. However, the big draw for me is the relationship between Jake and Rose, yeah, an action show aimed at boys and it was the romance that i was invested in. Jake and Rose were friends at high school, eventually turned lovers, but unbeknownst to them, they were mortal enemies, Rose being part of the underground cult The Huntsclan, a group who dedicate their lives to hunting and killing magical creatures, especially dragons.

*Spoilers Ahead*

Eventually, the two learn each other's secret identity and that's where the emotional conflict begins, both are loyal to their causes, but they also love each other, this all comes to a climax when Jake makes a wish to change history and stop Rose from being taken from her parents and forced to join the hunstclan, thus, the two never meet and never become enemies, Rose can live a happy life, while Jake retains the memories of a future that never could. What makes it so interesting and gets me so invested is how conflicted they are, they don't turn their back on each other, but there's no way they can be together without betraying their beliefs. A modern day Romeo & Juliet story, two lovers from two different worlds, wonder brought them together but tragedy stuck them apart, in the end they can't be together, the only way they can be happy is to prevent the one thing that brought them together from happening. Not only does it make for a good love story, but it also makes for a good hero story, Jake is a cocky cock, he likes to make quips, slack off his duties and use his powers for selfish gain, but he always knows where his values must lie and that he does have to be patient and make sacrifices for the sake of the greater good. Also they're played by Dante Basco & Mae Whitman, so if you were upset that Zuko and Katara never got together, this is a good severance package.

-Danny

Batman Arkham Knight: The Best Shitty Release

Don't you love misleading titles? I'm currently playing Batman: Arkham Knight and so far I am bloody loving it, already clocked in over 20 hours and still got plenty more to go. But it is strange how for a game that is so good, so enjoyable and so right in so many ways...did so much wrong, not in terms of content, but in terms of PR. Let's look at all the faults with this game before it was released: Get's it's release date pushed back twice, that's not a good sign. Day One DLC, that's always shitty. Offering free DLC when pre-ordered, also shitty. Different DLC when ordering from different retailers, that's just cruel. Persistent on a season pass, really obnoxious. Over saturation of trailers, you risk spoiling the game guys. Horrible PC port due to outsourcing the game, way to fucking screw it up fellas.

Those are seven strikes against this game, seven examples of the corrupt, greedy and uncaring nature of gaming companies, especially the marketing teams. Yet very few people seem to be focusing on any of these, well, except the PC port (See Angry Joe for that). Why? Because it's a good fucking game, the story is excellent, the visuals are stunning, the gameplay is magnificent, you know, the stuff that actually matters. But it's important to take note whenever a game does shitty business practises like this, because if we discriminate against when it is and isn't a bad thing then gaming companies are never going to change. No it's not going to affect my enjoyment of the game, but it does mean you lose trust and because i can see through your shitty business schemes, i'm not going to buy a single piece of your DLC...not that it matters to you cause you're going to make millions off of this game. Wow i'm so conflicted, on one hand i don't want to support this game because of the shitty decisions that came with it, but on the other hand...it's the mother-fucking Batman! And it's so good!

-Danny

The Best Of The Marvel Line-Up

Marvel is currently going through it's Secret Wars storyline right now which is their way of rebooting the entire comic universe and it is...confusing to say the least (How many Peter Parkers are there?). But we already know what comics will remain come October, there will be 45 overall and I am going to talk about the ones that get me excited (in alphabetical order).

1. All New, All Different Avengers
As much as I love The Avengers, the comic series has never really appealed to me, but with a brand new line-up of heroes, hopefully this will give it a fresh perspective. The line-up includes Iron Man (Tony Stark), Thor (Jane Foster), Captain America (Sam Wilson), Ms Marvel (Kamala Khan), Spider-Man (Miles Morales) Nova (Sam Alexander) and The Vision. It's a creative and new line-up of characters who we haven't seen interact in this combination so i look forward to seeing how they all get along.






2. Daredevil
Ever since the breakout success of Netflix's Daredevil, of course Marvel are going to want to give him a lot of focus, and the big change that we can see from this cover alone is that Matt Murdock has a sidekick! I'm interested in seeing where they're going to go with this character and see what they do new. Unlike some other comics like Amazing Spider-Man or All New X-Men which i'm sure will be good, i expect them to be the same as before, here, who knows what they're gonna do.







3. Extraordinary X-Men
The X-Men comic is one that needed a hard reboot, character relationships were convoluted, people were much angstier than before, the line-up was too different, i want to see the X-Men go back to their roots. Hopefully this comic-line will do that (The inclusion of Old Man Logan is interesting) and they can give us the X-Men we all know and love.









4. Guardians of the Galaxy
Star-Lord is a woman!? Is it Kitty Pryde!? Where's Gamora!? Venom's there!? AND THE THING!? Fuck me, comic, ya got me hooked and i haven't seen a single page yet!











5. Ms Marvel
This is kind of against the other titles on my list, i'm mostly focusing on the comics that look like they're doing something different and actually feel like there was a reason for a reboot. Ms Marvel is a character I want to stay the exact same, she's still new enough that they can just continue her story and i'd be fine with it. Hell, she's one of the best characters and comics that Marvel has got right now, don't mess with something perfect.








6. Spider-Gwen
One of the breakout characters of the past year, though I love the concept, the character and the costume design, being honest her short run didn't really impress me all too much. Hopefully now that Marvel has realised her popularity will result in a stronger focus on better storytelling.










7. Spider-Man
Miles Morales's Spider-Man is sailing on the same boat as Ms Marvel, a break-out character that fans fell in love with and he's still fresh enough that they don't really have to change much about his story, especially seeing as his story ended with the revelation that is girlfriend is a Hydra agent, i wanna see where that goes. It also shows how much faith Marvel has in Miles as a character seeing as his title is just 'Spider-Man' as if it's their way of saying he's the main Spidey for them.







So those were the Marvel comics that I am most looking forward to reading come October, there are plenty of others that I will be checking out, but for the most part i either don't expect them to do much different or was never really interested in the characters in the first place. These are the ones that are doing new ideas for characters I love, i cannot wait to see what they're going to do and to see what the new Marvel Universe has in store for us.