Joss Whedon is Being Sued

Sorry, the review for Arrow has been pushed back to tomorrow because this news story is worth talking about. Joss Whedon and Lionsgate are being sued for $10 Million by author Peter Gallagher for the claim that Joss's film Cabin in the Woods is a rip-off of his book The Little White Trip: A Night in the Pines. The book follows the story of a group of young adults travelling to a cabin in the middle of the woods where the previous inhabitants were a family, murdered by the father who have returned from the dead to kill the new tenants, In the end, it is revealed that the friends are being filmed and manipulated by persons behind the scenes, thus becoming inadvertent characters in a real-life horror show for the enjoyment of others. Now from a first glance, there are definitely similarities between the two, Cabin in the Woods has a group of young adults go into the woods and gets attacked by a family of zombies, except the major difference being that we (the audience) know about it being a giant sham and being controlled by an organisation from the start. But even with those similarities, I still find this claim to be bullshit.

Let's look at the case, it was a self-published book that according to news sources only ran 7,500 copies, making the chances that Joss Whedon and co-writer Drew Goddard reading it, highly unlikely to have ever read the book. Also the film is a satire of typical Hollywood tropes in horror films, the heavy emphasis on gore, stereotypical characters making poor decisions, over-sexualization of female characters, etc. Also the idea of characters going to a cabin in the woods, serious or satire, is not an original story (Evil Dead anyone?). Finally, look at the timing of this lawsuit, the film started production in 2009 and was released in 2012, yet the author waits until now to file a lawsuit? Now it is possible that he only just saw the film recently but to sue them just as Joss Whedon is in the spotlight again with Avengers: Age of Ultron coming out, doesn't that seem a bit coincidental to anyone? It's like last year when Bryan Singer, director of X-Men Days of Future Past was taken to court just as the film was being released over claims of him molesting someone over a decade prior, and surprise-surprise, the case was dismissed. And again, the lawsuit is for Joss Whedon & Lionsgate, not Drew Goddard, probably because he's not in the spotlight right now to be taken advantage of.

Now while I don't know him personally, but looking at his work prior, this doesn't seem like the type of this for Joss Whedon to do. He has made some of the most creative and entertaining work of the 21st century, why steal someone else's idea at the height of his career? And the similarities seem...too similar to be serious, and i know that may seem stupid to say, but let's look at it closely. The book has two characters named Julie and Dura, the film has two characters named Jules and Dana. Joss is not an idiot, and i don't know anyone who would be stupid enough to rip-off a story and keep the names that similar, it really does feel like a coincidence.

And no this isn't me being a Whedon fanboy coming to defend his honour, nor is it me intentionally slandering this author...well maybe a little bit, but hey, this is why i'm not a lawyer, but from my perspective, this seems a little too fishy for me to think this is a serious case of intellectual infringement.

-Danny

The Flash "All Star Team Up" Review

"God there's two of them" "I thought central city was the fun one" "is that a bird? no it's a plane" "bee careful, bad pun sorry, just don't die" "you just died, maybe you should order in tonight""oh thank god the food's here" "BOOM! Drop the mike!...metaphorical cause I don't have a mike" "either my fear of bees is gone or it's much much worse". I think this episode wins the award of greatest one liners in a single episode. This is All Star Team Up, which sees Ray Palmer & Felicity Smoak arrive in Central City to improve the ATOM suit and to catch a crazy scientist who builds killer robot bees...only on The Flash. Also Eddie struggles to keep Barry's secret from Iris and Barry can't decide whether or not he can trust Cisco and Caitlin.

So let's talk about the main plot of the episode...bees I guess. It's nothing more than a villain of the week, a filler plot to give the characters something to do apart from sit around and chat. But i've said it before, my favourite parts of this show are when it's just characters talking to each other, and this is another example of that. Ray and Felicity fit perfectly in this show, and seeing the different relationships and conversations that they have amongst each other like Ray & Cisco being good buds, it was the highlight of the show. But then I worry that it might be too good, because if this episode proved anything, it's that Felicity and Ray most definitely belong on Flash than they do Arrow, they have better chemistry, their characters are more akin to this style of writing and the over the top nature of Flash is perfect for them. Also this episode supports my view of Felicity and Ray being a better couple than Felicity and Ollie, and i have a feeling the writers of Flash think that too. So if these two ever want to come back to Central City, they are more than welcome.

Then there is the subplot of this weeks episode, Iris & Eddie, which again, proves that Iris is the worst character in the show, before she was just useless, now she's crossed over into annoying. Iris is upset that Eddie is keeping a big secret from her, fair enough, but the way how they handle it was the worst way possible. First of all, it's not Eddie's secret he's keeping, it's Barry's, they could tell her that and then she'll lay off Eddie and start pestering Barry. But the worst part is at the end when she says he can tell her his secret of she'll break up with him; now here's a little bit of relationship advice for y'all NEVER GIVE AN ULTIMATUM. If you're dating someone and they say "do this or i'm breaking up with you" then break up with them, that is not someone who you should be dating who is willing to threaten you with something like that, so my advice for Eddie: dump the bitch.

Finally there is the story progression, Barry tells Cisco and Caitlin about their theory on Dr Wells, also Cisco is able to remember Wells killing him...even though Barry went back in time and that never happened (I'm aparently able to buy killer robot bees, but not repressed memories of an event that technically didn't even happen). Now the actual story progression here was relatively small in comparison to other episodes but the focus here was more of in connection to the theme of this weeks episode, trust & betrayal. Barry isn't sure if he can trust Cisco and Caitlin, which fair enough, they've been with Dr Wells for years now, it's entirely possible they would take his side over Barry, so yet again, this show doesn't force the emotional conflict like a lot of other melodramas like to. Again my biggest problem with how this was handled is the lack of subtlety, but then again, this show likes to be so blatant with it's messages that if they ever did try to be subtle then it would probably go over my head even though my reflexes are too quick and I would catch it (That's right, I just made a Marvel reference in a DC review, drop the mike...metaphorically of course).

Overall, this was a solid episode, the highlights were as always the interactions between the characters, though the story did feel like a lot of filler. Though when Cisco said they were off to karaoke, please tell me I wasn't the only one who wanted to see that, I want my musical episode dammit! And again, my favourite parts are when they're just hanging out, so i would definitely watch an episode of just them at karaoke. I give this episode an 8/10.

-Danny

The Evolution of Captain America

Well, I spoke about Iron Man rather negatively before, I guess it's only fair to talk about his opposite, both politically and for me personally, because I love Captain America, but to explain my love for him, let's go back to his conception. When Captain America first appeared back in the 1940's, his character was there simply as a piece of propaganda, sock ol' Hitler in the jaw and all that good patriotism that America is filled with. As the years went on, Captain America in a way remained a piece of propaganda, his character acted as a reflection of the American dream, his idealistic nature, strong belief in basic humans rights and his actions, no matter how destructive always having the best intentions at heart. But then we get to the movie version who is both a faithful retelling of his traditional origin, but also adjusting him for a post-modern world. In Captain America; The First Avenger the role that Captain America plays in the film, is initially that of a piece of propaganda; despite his amazing abilities, the American military used him as a marketing tool, like I said, staying faithful, while also giving it a post-modern twist. As for his personality, it is mostly intact, he still holds true to his values, represents to idealistic nature of the American dream and always stands up for the little guy, the biggest difference that I can note is that this version of Captain America seems more light-hearted and sympathetic, while the comic book counterpart (At least these days) seems more aggressive and worn down by the cruel reality of the world. That is most likely because comic book CA is more worn down than his movie version, but nevertheless, I personally prefer the more open-minded CA rather than the comic book version.

But that's all good as an adaptation, but how is Captain America used as a film character, what do we understand about him and what can we learn from looking deeper into the films? Like I said, Captain America is the representation of the American Dream, he wants nothing more than to do good, and while most films would have their character go through an emotional arc and have their protagonist be a better person by the end, Steve Rodgers really doesn't need to go through one, he's already got the perfect mindset, his challenge in the first film is entirely physical. He wants to do good but doesn't have the means to do so, once he does have the means, he doesn't know how to direct it and by the end he is the hero he wants to be. For me this makes him a much more likeable character, the people that are set in their ways and even when they don't have the means, they still want to fight the worthy fight, my favourite line that sums up his character is "I don't wanna kill anyone, I just don't like bullies".

Then there is Captain America: The Winter Soldier, a movie that had a tough task of giving us themes and ideas to challenge both Captain America and us the audience. By this point Captain America is by all means the perfect man, he has the perfect ideals, the perfect body, in all ways he is the living embodiment of the American dream, so what could be powerful enough to challenge the American dream? Well America of course. I don't think it's any secret that most people see the American dream as nothing more than that, a dream. In our post-modern, Internet blessed, invasion of privacy world known as the 21st century, America has become far more self-reflexive and much more cynical, all the theories and fears of the past based around government are right, corrupt police, government invading privacy and bearing down on you with the ideology of "if you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear". Again, Steve sums it up with one line "This isn't freedom, this is fear". Working as both a critical view on a modern day American society, a little too on the nose, but nevertheless effective and relevant, a film that tries harder than most in it's genre to actually say something important.

But it's not just America being challenged, it's Captain America, his patriotic, god fearing and optimistic society of the 1940s is gone and now he is really a man out of time, with his traditional beliefs now seen as dated and unrealistic. He now has to acknowledge the possibility that what he's always held true may not be a fight worth fighting, and again, it's not Captain America himself that needs to change, but rather the world around him, here we have an honest man who wants to do good, and a system that has been filled with secrets and bureaucracy and questionable morals and finally have it all collapse in on itself. Of course there is still a physical challenge present, that being The Winter Soldier, also a man out of time, but one who has forcefully been adapted into the corrupt system, losing his old ways. Now admittedly he's not as interesting as a villain could be, mostly because his change was forced upon him and he acts as nothing more than a puppet, but nevertheless there is still that conflict present.

While Iron Man's answer to fighting a corrupt system is to straight out reject it for his own system which is equally questionable, Captain America rather seeks to improve the system and even when he does things by his own accord, it's never for his own benefit, nor risk the lives of innocent people. Captain America is an idealistic character in a corrupt world, which is always something that I love to see and is one my favourite characters and is a hero worth looking up too.

-Danny

Is Jimmy Fallon a YouTuber?

About a month ago, YouTube channel The Fine Bros uploaded a video called "YouTubers React to Jimmy Fallon" if you need context, here it is: YouTubers are people who make YouTube videos for a living, it's debatable what a YouTuber actually is, but for the sake of this post, that's the definition I'm going with because those are the people featured in the video. The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon is an American talk show, who over the past year or so has started uploading clips to YouTube and becoming viral hits. In the video, the YouTubers discussed the idea of television moving over to YouTube and opening up that market, and a lot of the YouTubers seemed...self-entitled. Their basic point was that they didn't want television to absorb YouTube and the powers that be start seeing content like this as the dominate form. Now fair enough, it's their jobs and what makes YouTube so unique is how it differs from television and feels like a much more independent form and they can't compete with Television in terms of budget or mass appeal. But at the same time, these YouTubers don't own YouTube.

What makes YouTube so great is that anyone and everyone can use it, I use it, I'm still on a very small scale, but I can still express my voice and opinions, the same with thousands of people, hundreds of which have turned this into their full time job. And inviting everyone to use it also includes television, they see plenty of benefits from this format and use it as a marketing tool, they post videos on there, they go viral, thus, more people will watch Jimmy Fallon, or at least be aware of him. Movie studios have been doing this for years now, releasing their trailers on YouTube are a marketing form, I don't see YouTubers complaining about that. They also referred to his videos as clickbait, which they're not, clickbait is tricking people with a nice hook in your title and providing something less engaging, the videos are called celebrities lip syncing and that is exactly what happens. If they meant they are there simply to go viral, then i would agree with that, and that's fine, also hypocritical of these YouTubers to say. YouTube is their job, they make videos hoping to get as many views as possible, the same as viral-bait videos, you have the same goal, get views, get money.

Another issue they have with this is that because they can't compete with this type of production quality, they worry Fallon will set an expectation for viewers that traditional YouTubers can't compete with. No. Keep in mind the current standard of quality for people outside of the YouTube community is still silly cat videos and fail compilations, not to mention people are still aware that this is a clip from a TV show, no expectations are going to be set from these videos, also this complaint implies that people watching have never seen a YouTube video before and that's just highly unlikely. But let's say that some people watch this and this is the quality of video they look for...that's fine! Everyone has their own opinion and their own preferences, there are plenty of popular YouTubers that i don't subscribe to because their content doesn't appeal to me, if people only want to watch videos of this variety then that's what they're going to do.

Another issue they've had is that this will take away focus from traditional YouTubers, now this i think they're half right, not from audiences, but from YouTube itself. Audiences can watch YouTube videos whenever they want, and they can watch as many as they want from a huge variety of channels, it's not like someone is going to watch a Jimmy Fallon video and be like "Well damn, there goes my quota for the day" it doesn't work like that. But for YouTube, they have a good point, if these videos become the dominant content then other styles and channels are going to get less attention and will slowly die out, not to mention the possibility of YouTube adapting for Television rather than the other way around could endanger the benefits and unique position that YouTube is currently in.

A final point they made, directing Jimmy/Anyone of this content style is to share the views and suggest that if they're using their home to promote themselves, they should repay the favour by helping promote YouTube and YouTube content creators. So in return I am going to address YouTubers directly: They-don't-owe-you-anything. Like I said, YouTube is a free format where anyone can make content, including Television shows to promote themselves, and they do it well, just because you were here first and are using YouTube in the traditional manner, doesn't mean people like Jimmy Fallon have to promote you, they don't owe you any favours, you're not the reason Fallon's content is successful on YouTube, you have nothing to do with it, don't act so self-entitled. YouTube is a constantly growing medium, where it was 10 years ago is not where it is today and the same can be said for your content, where you started and where you are now has most likely upgraded in quality and will always be improving, just because Fallon has high quality with minimal time and low risk, does not make you better and does not make you superior.

-Danny

The Many Flaws of Iron Man

With the superhero genre being the most popular genre in Hollywood right now, a lot of people like to analyse these characters and see if they hold any value or worth in the long run and for the most part they do. Captain America works as a reflection of American idealism vs the corruption of the real system, Spider-Man shows all the strong qualities we look for in heroes but also the negative impact of vigilantism, Batman is really whatever the hell you want him to be at this point there are so many different ways to analyse him. And then there's the breakout hero of the bunch, Iron Man, arguably the most popular hero of this generation, but also the one with the most issues as a person and an idea.

One of the major criticisms with idolising superheroes is that for the most part they are vigilantes who decide to take the law into their own hands, and in some aspects it's understandable. Daredevil works against a corrupt police force in a localised area, he's not putting the lives of anyone at risk except his own, but Iron Man is a rich weapons designer/alcoholic who decides to build his own weapon and fight terrorists.

So let's start off with the first of of his decision, the first one being that he makes a super weapon for himself (The Iron Man suit) and goes to a war zone and shoots up the first terrorists he sees, not only endangering their hostages but going in guns ablazing with very little context. Instead of giving the terrorists a chance to turn themselves in or talk this out, he much rather shoot everyone, which yes he got lucky but considering that so many heroes are working as reflections of our world and our ideals, in reality there would be a lot more negative consequences to this kind of scenario, it's never that simple. And then there are the legal ramifications of this, touched upon in Iron Man 2 where the US Government tries to get Tony Stark to hand over the Iron Man suit and it is played up as we are supposed to support Tony fighting the oppression of government over one man, except the government is right. Tony is a weapon's manufacturer under a legal contract, now i don't know the specifics of his contract but they normally say, if you build a weapon, you build it for us, so legally, they have the rights to the suit, morally, they should still probably get it, because again, the idea of one man having all the power in deciding what's right and wrong is a bad system, that's how dictatorships are formed and people don't always like that scenario. It just so happens that the government official wanting the suit happened to be part of Hydra, but my point still stands.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that the government aren't the right people to use the Iron Man suit (which if Captain America has taught us anything, they're not) does that make Tony Stark the next best choice? No. In the first film he's inexperienced, selfish and very brass, in the second, he is shown to be an alcoholic and in the third he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, in none of these scenarios is this a person that should be trusted with the most dangerous weapon on the planet. The only reason why Tony Stark is yet to face any consequences for his actions is because he is the main character and we are suppose to believe he is always in the right, except when so many other superheroes are trying to show the negative consequences of vigilantism, Tony Stark ruins it.

Now yes it is most likely that Tony Stark will face the consequences for his actions in both Age of Ultron and Civil War, where the conversation becomes much more than just implications but actual discussions, where Stark tries to turn himself around and actually become a functioning figure in the United States Government on controlling and registering superheroes so these type of scenarios become less common. However, that doesn't change the fact that Stark has been getting away with this bullshit for 7 years now and only now people have started to make that change.

Now keep in mind, this is not me saying I dislike Iron Man, I love Iron Man, he is a very entertaining character, he kicks a lot of ass and Robert Downey Jr is very funny to watch on screen, what i'm saying is the implications of the character and the films viewpoint on how to counter terrorism is highly flawed when it just resorts to: a different kind of terrorism.

-Danny

Pros and Cons: Daredevil

I haven't fully decided whether or not i'm going to do a full review of Daredevil yet, but I just finished watching all of the episodes (Don't judge me) so here are my pros and cons of the show.

Pros

Cast & Characters: I honestly could not find a single cast member that I was let down with, and in live action superhero shows, I thought that to be impossible (Iris, Laurel, etc). But fact is, no character is wasted, no character is one dimensional, no character is badly acted, I thoroughly enjoyed all of them, my personal favourites being Matt Murdock (Obviously) Wilson Fisk (I'll talk about him in a second) and Wesley (Best sidekick ever).

Wilson Fisk: Marvel have never really done villains very well, even though everyone loves Loki, i personally never found him threatening as a villain, just entertaining. Wilson Fisk had everything a good-nay-a great villain needed, he had an interesting backstory, he had complex motives, he was intimidating both politically and physically and finally he was performed excellently by Vincent D'Onofrio. In my opinion, Wilson Fisk is the best villain that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has given us to this day.

Action: While Arrow has some excellent fight choreography, the cinematography doesn't always complement it; here, the action is fast, dynamic and most of all, clear on what's happening. Also Daredevil is not invincible, he is clearly seen getting hurt or tired in almost all the fight scenes, and that's an important detail that humanises the character. Though I will say, sometimes it is obvious someone didn't actually get punched.

Style: This is one of the most artistically gripping shows on television right now, you hear people say we are in the golden age of television (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, True Detective) well Daredevil i feel can be held up just as well as any of them. The colour scheme, the cinematography, the atmosphere, the opening, the costume designs (Both hero & normal) it is excellent, just watch the rainy fight scene in episode one for proof of that.

Hallway Fight: The fight scene in episode two is the best fight scene i've seen since The Raid 2, the choreography, the cinematography, the lack of music. 100% Perfect.

Cons

Daredevil's Powers: Something about Murdock's blindness (or lack thereof) really bothers me, what makes a character like this interesting is how their disability leads to an alternate ability, but in Murdock's case, there is no disability anymore, his powers are so good he can tell where everything is, what people look like, there is no real downside to his powers. Also they can be really inconsistent, like not hearing a police car until it's right behind him, I mean I know he says he has to focus it, but he really doesn't hear a siren until it's 10ft from him!?

Plot: The story arc of the show reminded me a lot of the first season of Arrow (better paced, but still similar), also looking at it in a broad spectrum, the plot is really simple and predictable. It's the interesting characters and tone of the show that keep it interesting and engaging, but if i were to describe the plot, it doesn't sound like anything groundbreaking.

Summary

Clearly you can tell I have a lot more good things to say about this show than there are bad things, and even the bad things aren't anything legitimately bad, just nitpicks or elements that need to be improved. Fact is, this is one of the best and most unique superhero shows that I have ever seen, I can't wait to see more and i'm giving Daredevil a 9/10.

-Danny

The Quality of Art is Reversed

A lot of both everyday society and high class society have views of art and what we deem to be high art, though it's a system that doesn't function on creativity, practicality or variety, but more of it's traditional status. Books are seen as more intellectual than comics, plays more high-class than films and films more important than videogames when in reality it should all be reversed. Drawings are seen as the most traditional form of art, when you think art, your mind instantly thinks of an image on a canvas that someone made with a pencil or a brush (to simplify it) and books are normally seen as the preferred form of telling a narrative, it can be as long as it wants to be, can go into insane amounts of detail and create ideas and stories like nothing else. So when you combine the highest form of visual art and the highest form of story art, you get comic books and this is a...lower form of art? Now obviously combining the two doesn't instantly have the benefits of both forms, a painting for example usually doesn't have a story to it, thus the images presented are up to your own interpretation, and while we can get that for comic books, it's usually more from a narrative aspect than a visual aspect. But apart from that, they still have the variety of styles you can get in a painting, they can be detailed, creative and beautiful images, except they can also tell a story, they can have social themes, complex characters and imaginative stories that they want to tell, stories like Watchmen or Persepolis or Batman. While there is some loss in the combining of the two, they're not as vague as paintings and they're not as detailed as books, yet they still retain 90% of the qualities of both forms, so why is it seen as the lower form of art?

The same can be said comparing movies to videogames, while films have a longer history of being complex and engaging, videogames, especially in the 21st century have become more artistically stimulating, have deeper characters and themes and can tell a story just as well as movies. I would infact take it a step further and say videogames can do it better, and i've discussed it before, the element of control. Videogames give you control of characters, they give you control over the story, the narrative becomes much more personal when you make the choices and the emotional connection that much stronger. People forget that when films were first born, they were nothing but mindless entertainment, something to distract the masses for a little while, the gimmick of seeing moving pictures was enough to keep people coming back, but eventually the charm wore off and if they wanted the form to survive, they had to make it stronger. The same with videogames, they didn't care about stories, they were just blown away by the fact that we had control over what was on screen, again, the same thing, the charm was going to wear down so if they wanted to survive, they had to try harder.

Even films are looked down upon as a lower form of art in comparison to theatre, yet from every technical aspect, theatre is the inferior form. Theatre is always a live performance, which means you only have one take, if you screw up or you don't get it right, that's it, that's the best you can do, film allows you to redo a performance as much as you want to get it perfect, but even then, the performances always have to be exaggerated on the stage, actors have to compromise the integrity of a performance, just to make sure the people in the back can hear them, meaning the dialogue may not always be delivered in the appropriate manner. Not to mention, it's a lot harder to get sucked into a play when you're always aware you're watching performers, you're looking at a set, you're surrounded by other people, you never fully believe you're in this world. Especially from a visual aspect, theatre doesn't have that much to offer in comparison, a film can tell an entire story or create emotions just through visuals alone, what the artist chooses to show you and how they choose to show it, an effect that is much harder to recreate on the stage and rarely done as much.

So why are the highest forms of art, considered the highest forms of art? Well, the main reason being tradition. Books came before Comic Books, Theatre came before Film, Film came before Videogames, the world is often unkind to new talent, new creations (Yes that's from Ratatouille). People are more comfortable accepting films as higher art than videogames because they've already proven to them that they can be, they prefer seeing books as better than comics because that's what they were. When these things were first created and introduced to the world, they were nothing more than fun play things and ways to kill time, the problem is, while the art form has grown, the people at the top haven't, they haven't accepted that new material and new ideas can do things not only differently, for better. Yes a lot of it does come down to personal taste and there are always going to be advantages and disadvantages from each art form to another, but in the end, the greatest form of art isn't what's old or what's new, but what's changing, what adapts to make the art form more capable of expressing great ideas by great artists.

-Danny