Fallout: Marvel Civil War

Last month it was announced that Spider-Man will be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is apparently supposed to appear in the upcoming Captain America: Civil War. I love Spider-Man. He's been my favourite superhero since I've been aware superheroes were a thing that exists.

I've written about how all of Spider-Man's villains are animal based and why The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of the Failed Franchise could have been the best Spider-Man movie ever if they had only let it be a Sipder-Man movie. Instead they used the movie to try to set up a dozen spin-off movies with a bazillion sub-plots and constant winks to the audience just in case they didn't catch the split-second shot of Doctor Octopus' tentacle arms.

"This never would have happen if we didn't have to have that subplot about your comb-over. I hope you're happy."

And while I love Spider-Man, to be honest, I've never really seen him as "team hero". Like, it makes sense to have him interact with the other members in the Marvel universe and to do team ups with Daredevil or the Fantastic Four on occasion, but I never really saw him as a member of a team. This is not to say I don't think her deserves to be on a team like the Avengers or that he can't do well within a team context since with the right writer he definitely can.

For example, I liked him as a member of the Avengers during Brian Michael Bendis run on the comic, since Bendis really understands the voice of Spider-Man and he interjected some needed wise-cracks and levity into a pretty serious team. However, I suppose I see Spider-Man as primarily a solitary superhero, far more so than Batman, who despite his reputation as a loner has a whole Bat-family of sidekicks and supporting characters.

The Batcave gets quite crowded during family gatherings.

A large part of the appeal of Spider-Man is due to the fact that he's a bit of an outsider, often considered a menace by the city he protects, not working in any official capacity with limited resources. Meanwhile more respected heroes like Iron Man and Captain America have either all the money or the backing of S.H.I.E.L.D behind them.

Even the X-Men, although considered outcasts themselves, have the financial resources of Professor X at their disposal, live together in a mansion, and have a freaking jet to take them where they need to be. Spidey can barely afford the thread needed to fix his costume when he tears it fighting Doctor Octopus.

Spider-Man was always a hero who seemed ideally suited to face dilemmas or adversity on his own. His best stories were always those which pitted him against a single villain who threatened the lives of his loved ones and had them face off in an intimate one-on-one climax. The Death of Gwen Stacy storyline with the Green Goblin comes to mind.

It's also why I would say that Venom so quickly became one of Spider-Man's greatest enemies. A villain with the same powers as Spider-Man but stronger and with the knowledge of his secret identity, knowing just how to get target those Spidet-Man loved if he so wished. He essentially is the perfect Spider-Man villain in a sense, since their encounters, rather than being epic sprawling tales, were rather quite insular and contained to just the two of them.

Also having Venom as Spider-Man's dark opposite helps too.

Now, how this relates to Spider-Man being injected into the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that after two solo franchises, he is suddenly going to be put into a superhero megafranchise that specialises in grand big epic stories with multiple superheros, alien invasions, objects of unlimited power, and climatic battles that often level cities. And while in the comics, Spider-Man is allowed to have his own street level adventures within that universe, this new cinematic Spider-Man hasn't yet.

This creates a situation where it seems as though Marvel and Sony might try to shoehorn Spidey into movies he was never planned to be in. If Spider-Man is going to be in the new Captain America movie and possibly have a pivotal role in the story like he did in the Civil War storyline in the comic, how much weight would he even have?

We haven't spent two or three movies getting to know the Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider-Man, so aside from the "holy shit, Spider-Man is chilling with the Avengers!!!" geek out moment, I don't know his presence would add any dramatic tension to the story since we just don't know the dude.

"Sorry, who are you again? Arachno-boy?" - Iron Man

Also, it raises some puzzling questions, like if this isn't an origin story (and please, sweet merciful Buddha, don't let it be a origin story), how long has Spider-Man been operating? For years? If so, what the hell was he doing when aliens attack New York? If he's new, then same thing I said above, he doesn't really add to the story unless he's already been established which they can't do since that would mean giving him a solo movie... which is only going to come out after Captain America: Civil War.

I actually thought the upcoming movie version of Marvel's Civil War storyline was gonna be so much better precisely because Spider-Man wasn't going to be in it. Although, Spider-Man injected a much needed every-man perspective on the event, his flip flopping between the two sides was kinda dumb, especially in light of the fact he flip flopped to the wrong side since Iron Man was right.

Here he is being right as he punches Captain America in the face.

There is also the concern that having Spider-Man in the movie will introduce secret identities to the Marvel Cinematic universe. I hope that's not the case because that would be stupid. Now, I'm not usually so blunt in my analysis or opinions but I really don't think that would be a smart idea. Only kinda sorta because the fact superheroes don't have secret identities and everyone knows Tony Stark is Iron Man in the movies makes way more sense than having secret identities, like I've talked about before.

And the fact that in the comic book Civil War, Spidey revealed his secret identity to the world was not a good move, especially when you consider that it lead to one of the worst creative decisions ever made for Spider-Man. I'm of course referring to that time he gave up his marriage to Mary-Jane in order save his dying Aunt May's life, in a deal which also had the bonus effect of having his secret identity restored. A deal he made with the devil*... yeah, that was a terrible decision.

Bad Spider-Man, bad. No life-long happiness with your wife for you.

Taking out the secret identity element of the story means it could focus more on issues of liberty vs security, sorta like Captain America: The Winter Soldier did, since in all honesty, of course superheroes should be registered. It's not really a debate about whether they should be but rather how and whether that registration could jeopardise their heroics by putting them on a database, stifling their ability to do good with legal bureaucracy and due process.

But let's back track to the point about Spider-Man revealing his secret identity only to make a deal with the devil to then reverse that decision. Remember how not smart that was? Well, that is the problem with the Civil War crossover, most of the things that happened in the story line, like with most huge comic books crossover events, were immediately reversed after the event itself ended.

Spider-Man got his secret identity back but lost his marriage since apparently he is not allowed to grow as a character but has to be a perpetually angsty single guy. However, Iron Man was set up as the head of S.H.I.E.L.D for a while before he had to go on the run when Norman "I'm the freaking Green Goblin and batshit crazy" Osborn took over S.H.I.E.L.D because comic book logic.

Aside from the fact that his grin screams evil, how could you ever trust a man with hair like that?

While Iron Man is on the lamb, in an actually fantastic storyline by Matt Fraction, he steadily deletes his memories to avoid Norman Osborn getting the information of other superheros' secret identities if he gets caught. He can do this since at this point he has merged with his tech so much that his brain is essentially a computer and he can deleting his memories like deleting a file on your laptop because comic book logic.

In a lovely touch, as he deletes his mind files, his brain increasingly loses intelligence and he has to downgrade his armour since he's no longer smart enough to use the more advanced technology. He eventually ends up in his original suit once his Trash Bin is nearly full and he had dumb down to the point where he couldn't use digital anymore.

Well, the retro look is in this year.

Of course, by the end of that story arc, after his memory has been deleted, he luckily had his memories stored but not the events of Civil War, which means that Iron Man can't remember ever being the bad guy in a massive crossover event. Essentially, the crossover event was so bad, Iron Man literally wiped it from his mind.

And that's the problem with comics and crossover events which are poorly thought out or don't resonate with the fans, they are just retconned out and there are very little to no lasting consequences. However, Marvel has shown they are wiling to have some lasting consequences and actually shake up things in their cinematic universe.

This was evident at the end of Captain America: Winter Soldier, where S.H.I.E.L.D was dismantled after the events of that movie. That was a significant consequence which has wider ramifications for the following movies in the franchise which seems to be felt in the anticipated Avengers movie judging by the lack of S.H.I.E.L.D in the trailer and the fact that Nick Fury says something like there's only them left while giving an overly motivational speech that was overly motivational.

"I'm sick of these motherfucking villains on this motherfucking planet"

Which is a very good thing. There need to be consequences for the actions taken by the hero or the events of the film otherwise it cheapens the dramatic impetus of the story and undermines those actions. That's because if they have no consequence, they have no weight and ultimately don't matter. Also, if there are no consequences for what the hero does, they can never learn and grow from them therefore having no character development, remaining in stasis, which gets boring.

On the note of character, can we spare a moment to shed a tear for the departure of Andrew Garfield? Like I've written before, I loved Garfield as Spider-Man, for although he was a little bit of a creeper and somewhat of a dick, he nailed the voice of Spider-Man like very few have.

Aw, yeah. A geeky science major who's endearingly awkward and rather handsome yet still somehow an outsider?
Nailed it.

People tend to forget that Peter Parker can be a bit of an asshole and rather selfish at times, but Garfield realised that aspect of Peter and brought it to his performance while his Spider-Man cracked with the wise just like he should. Now, while I thought Toby Maguire made a decent Spider-Man but a better Peter Parker, Garfield embodied both. He really was Spider-Man.

So here's to poor Andrew Garfield. I always thought he was a great Spider-Man in not very good Spider-Man movies. Hopefully, his loss won't be in vain and Spidey will be awesome in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Footnote:

*Mephisto is a devil, deal with it

References:

Official: Spider-Man Swinging To Marvel Studios

6 Ways the New 'Captain America' Movie Will Fix the Original

Wonder Woman: Warrior Princess

Wonder Woman is amazing. I'm just putting that out there. She just is. She is one of the greatest superheroes ever. One third of DCs Holy Trinity with Batman and Superman, she unfortunately has never got her proper due in terms of adaptions across other media the way Bats and Supes have.

Both of the World's Finest, particularly the Dark Knight, have starred in a multitude of solo cartoons and live action movies while Wonder Woman has never had a solo cartoon TV show or live action movie. She has had a solo cartoon movie though.

Praise Hera.

That was 2009's Wonder Woman and it was a origin story for the character, introducing her rich backstory as an Amazon princess from the isolated island of Themyscira, and how she was formed from sand, blood, and lightning by her mother Hippolyta.

Yes, you read that right. She was formed from sand, blood, rain and lightning. Hippolyta molded her infant body out of sand, cut her finger and bled on her sandy mold, raise it up towards the heavens in the rain, and it was struck by lightning causing Wonder Woman to be born.

I'm sorry but that is the most epic and mythic origin of any superhero ever. Now, I do understand that Superman and Batman's origins may be more iconic due to their simplicity, last son of dying alien planet sent to save humanity and a son sees parents murdered in front of him so he decides to dress up as a bat and punch crime in the face, but seriously they don't really compare.

"And then my mother hold me aloft, her blood mixing with the sand, as I was struck by lightning and given life."

Be honest with yourself, Wonder Woman's origin is steeped in classic mythology going back to Ancient Greece and is far more badass than nearly any other superhero's. She was born by literally being struck by lightning! Lightning striking things is still cool, right?

But here's the thing, since her story has been told less often and across fewer forms of media as Batman and Superman, it's less known and therefore is less embedded in the popular consciousness. Also, that is only the story of her birth, not how she became a superhero.

Unlike Superman or Batman, Wonder Woman's superhero origin isn't steeped in tragedy in the same way Batman's parents were murdered in front of him and he spent his life training to become Batman, or how Superman's home planet was destroyed along with his entire race, leaving him the sole surviving member of his people.

You can tell that it weighs heavy on his soul.

Wonder Woman was sent as an ambassador from Themyscira to the outside world, to serve as an emissary to foster understanding between two vastly different cultures, and fight on behalf of the Amazons for mankind. She became a superhero, not because she was traumatised by a tragic event into devoting her life to fighting crime like Batman nor because she was sent to be a beacon of hope to show humanity the way like Superman, but because she wanted to see the world of man and become its protector.

While Wonder Woman was sent to be beacon to humanity, it was not to be a symbol of hope really. Rather, she was sent to be a bridge between two isolated worlds, a beacon of understanding and strength. Both an emissary and a warrior, she serves to broker peace but to fight with force if that peace is broken. Not really a tragic superhero origin either.

I mean, her mother was raped by Ares, gave birth to his son, and then beheaded said son in battle, causing Ares to become an eternal enemy to the Amazons, and one of Wonder Woman's most bitter foes. So, one of her greatest enemies is the man who forced himself on her mother and who could have been her father if things had been different. However, I don't know if that is quite as tragic as your parents being shot in front of you after watching the Mark of Zorro.

"Leaving the theatre before the Mark of Zorro finished was the real tragedy that night."

Now, you might be asking yourself why I've been talking so much about Batman and Superman in relation to Wonder Woman. That's because where Superman is hero of light, symbolising the best qualities humanity can aspire to, and Batman is a hero of darkness, the shadowy guardian of a corrupt city, Wonder Woman is the perfect balance between both. A hero that embodies peace, justice and love, yet is a born warrior with a strong will and is not afraid to resort to violence if required.

However, after watching a couple of DC Original Animated Movies I noticed that Batman and Superman's characters are pretty consistent across the both films although they were made with different writers and directors. But Wonder Woman's wasn't. In fact, the way she was depicted in the films differed quite drastically.

In Justice League: War, a retelling of the Justice League with the New 52 reboot of the characters, where the rebooted Superman is possibly more overconfident than he usual, he is still Superman and Batman is still very much Batman, Wonder Woman is quite different to the poised superhero depicted in the Justice League animated series.

Rather she is kind of flighty and wild, lacking a sense of protocol or responsibility to her more diplomatic duties as an ambassador. While she does show the compassion and desire for justice associated with the character, since she delights only in battle, when she's not in the middle of a fight, she seems unable to pay attention to anything for long.

Although the scene where she has ice cream for the first time was brilliant.

The other film, 2009's Wonder Woman, is also an origins story, and for the first half of the film, Wonder Woman isn't Wonder Woman but Diana, princess of Themyscira. However, in this film, although she's young and headstrong, wanting to strike out and gain her independence, at the same time, she is skilled beyond her years and gifted with a grace and nobility rarely found.

She is what I would call the most true depiction of a young Wonder Woman I've seen, still learning and maturing but definitely growing into the superhero we know and love. All the qualities that make define her character are there, her compassion, her determination and refusal to give up a fight, her wisdom and intelligence, her physical strength and poise.

She's also badass as hell in this movie. Did I not mention that?

And I would say that vast difference in the depictions is as much because of that balance between light and dark which Wonder Woman embodies as it is the writers having fun showing different takes on the character. Whereas Batman and Superman are pretty nailed down in terms of their personalities and the types of heroes they are, Wonder Woman is slightly less defined as a character, allowing for different interpretation.

As long as you get her compassion, regal bearing, and sense of justice down, everything else is fair game. She can be a bit overzealous or brash, impatient or impulsive, composed and collected, soft spoken and intimidating. Whichever version of Wonder Woman you wish to tell will be true to the character if she bears herself like the warrior princess of a mythic people, displays empathy to those in need, and has an unwavering sense of what is right.

And that's awesome since it highlights how much she compliments the other members of the Holy Trinity by occupying the middle ground between two extremes, between light and dark, between ideals and gritty reality. That balance really is a core aspect of the character and a huge part of what makes her one of the greatest superheroes ever.

So, yeah. Like I said, Wonder Woman is amazing.

References:

Wonder Woman in other media Wikipedia page

Wonder Woman (2009 film) Wikipedia page

Justice League: War Wikipedia page

Star Wars with Power Rings

Green Lantern has always been secretly a favourite hero of mine. By that I mean, that while there are a number of superheros that will always come before Green Lantern for me, there is something about Green Lantern and the idea of his powers that I've always liked. And although John Stewart is far cooler and more badass, I have always had a soft spot for Hal Jordan, maybe because I love his Green Lantern uniform the most.

Now I've spoken before about why the Empire was doomed once they went up against the Ewoks, or why a robot uprising led by R2D2 is inevitable but I haven't really discussed what makes Star Wars a space opera. Before I get into that, you may be asking how is this relevant to a intergalactic space cop with green jewelry? It's because, like I'll beat the point to death below, Green Lantern is a interstellar superhero.

The Green Lantern movie should have been Star Wars with power rings instead of lightsabers. No seriously, it could have been a sprawling epic spanning the galaxy with a variety of different alien species interacting and amazing space battles. More than any of the other mainstream DC superheroes, Green Lantern isn't tied to Earth but rather flew among the stars.

Look he's flying... in space!

While Superman might have the occasional interplanetary romp and even Batman has been known to breathe in space, Green Lantern is a truly cosmic superhero, part of an intergalactic police force, the guardian to a vast sector of space spanning solar systems. Due to the interstellar nature of the character, his adventures are should be sweeping space operas limited only by the imagination of the writer.

Where this relates to Star Wars is that a huge part of what made Star Wars resonate with so many people wasn't solely the fact there are lightsabers (although that is a good 70-80% of the reason) but because it offered this rich and expansive fictional universe with thousands of different alien species and hundreds of planets in a galaxy far far away. You have ice planets and sand planets and lava planets and forest moons and cloud cities.

There are creatures you can scarcely comprehend they look so weird or unusual. Alien races with their own cultures, fashion, and biological structures. And of course the obligatory green skinned alien girl. There is always a green skinned alien girl. And this vast diversity is matched by the futuristic or outer-worldly technology, with blasters, phasers, lightsabers, space ships, jetpacks, pod racers, and lightsabers.

Lightsabers!

And Green Lantern taps into that wild flight of imagination scifi like Star Wars offers. The initial hype for the Green Lantern movie even billed it as the new Star Wars, and that one of the Green Lantern's greatest strengths as a character was the fact that he can do these epic space adventures that most other superheroes can't really.

Free of the constraints of stories set on Earth, the Green Lantern can offer adventures on alien worlds thousand of light years away where the density is five times that of Earth due to the high density of the world's core or where the clouds are made out of crystal. He can battle space smugglers or space pirates, space ghosts or space mercenaries. Basically anything with space in front of it.

Like his eternal struggle against Space Jam.

But where it makes perfect sense for Green Lantern to be gallivanting out in space, it was always weird when the X-Men went out to another solar system to fight in the Shi'ar civil war with and against aliens millions of light years away, especially since the X-Men are ostentatiously supposed to be a metaphor for discrimination which doesn't quite work if they're completely removed from the environment of that discrimination.

Likewise, the Flash is such a grounded superhero, tied so strongly to Central City in the same way Batman is to Gotham, that although he could have the odd adventure on another planet, it was usually with the Justice League since it doesn't really fit his character.

Running in the vacuum of space? Seems legit.

Now I really wanted to like the Green Lantern movie, I really did. But for all the moments the Green Lantern gets the intergalactic part of Green Lantern right, there are at least two moments where he's on Earth moping around because he's not brave enough or playing Hot Rods with his power ring.

And although there was a lot of fan service in the movie by having so many of the Green Lanterns present on Oa when Hal is there, we never spend any time with them nor do we even see them do anything interesting or cool. They're just there. In the background.

Even worse is that because of the dark colour palette and terribly render CGI in the large group shot showcasing the weird variety of alien species that make up the Green Lantern corp, it makes it real difficult to distinguish the different aliens apart since they kinda blur into each other.

And honestly, that sounds way more racist written down than it did in my head. 

I honestly didn't care about Hal Jordan's childhood friend becoming evil and growing a bobble head, him goofing off with his nerdy friend, or even his relationship with Carol. That was all boring Earth stuff which, aside from the bobble head guy, should have been in the first act to set up his character and the life he lead... which he then leaves in the second act to fly around in space!

Also, the Earth stuff really bogged down the narrative since there was too much cutting back and forth going on between the two bad guys, bobble head and Parallax. Especially since the movie was trying to set them both up as legitimate threats to Green Lantern while explaining their motivations (bobble head is a creep who wants to sleep with Carol and is jealous of Hal, while Parallax is evil).

That was time we could instead have been spending with Tomar-Re because the more time spent with Tomar-Re, the better. Tomar-Re is the parrot fish looking alien who teaches Hal how to use his ring to fly. And it really is one of the more elegant scenes in the movie. The wry way Tomar-Re says, "We're gonna fly now" as though he knows what he said will blow Hal's mind but he's just gonna put it out there calm as can be because that's just how he does.

It's actually a great scene.

And the film would really had benefited from more scenes like that. They rushed the training sequence on Oa just to have Hal immediately doubt himself after Sinestro said something mean, so he quits and flies back to Earth. This was where we could have seen Hal truly realising the unlimited potential of the ring and develop his own unique way of using it, since every Lantern's constructs are slightly different based on their personality and imagination.

It also could have been an opportunity to see how the training serves to teach Lanterns to focus their will or highlight some of the many aliens we saw in the dark background before. But instead, we barely got to hear Killiwog really get lay into Hal for being a powser before he's whisked away back to Earth to play Hot Rods.

For some reason, I find the vastly diverse intergalactic police force armed with power rings more interesting.

One last thing, while a lot of people didn't like the casting, I thought that Ryan Reynolds would make a great Hal Jordan and truly he's one of the best things about the movie. Although at times a bit too jokey and immature, he really nailed the young Hal Jordan, cocksure and brash, unable to follow instructions yet dedicated.

Too bad he just happens to be a good Hal Jordan in a terrible Green Lantern movie.

Cyclops in Love - The Romantic History

It's Valentine's Day, and because it's Valentine's Day I thought it best to take a look into the Cyclops' love life since that's the first thing I thought of when I realised I needed to write a Valentine's Day article. I also postponed the article a day to release it on Valentine's Day, but that's more because that I'm lazy and hadn't finished it than any real reason to coincide with the holiday.

Now, Cyclops, aka Scott Summers, is one of my favourite X-Men ever. There is just something about the character, his design, his sense of commitment and leadership, and the epic nature of his powers that really appealed to me. I've already talked about Cyclops and why he's a badass before, but just to reiterate, I think he is a far more interesting character than most people give him credit for.

Yep, totally not badass blasting frikkin' Captain America away like that. Not badass at all.

He is one of the best examples of the tortured hero Marvel has, and they have a monopoly on tortured heroes, from the Hulk's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde trauma to Spider-Man's teenage angst. But where other Marvel superheroes' problems seem to come from trying to reconcile their everyday life with the responsibility of having a spandex-wearing crime fighting alter ego, Cyclop's initial conflict came from his powers themselves.

For Cyclops shaped a large part of he interacts with the world and deals with things based on the anxiety and fear he has about the destructive force of his powers.  He tries to keep himself in control at all times for fear of accidentally letting loose an optic blast in a moment of carelessness and hurting his loved ones.

I love that aspect of Cyclops and it explains much of the stiffness often attributed to the character. He has to remain stoic and in control at all times since one little mishap in a moment of laxity can lead to adding a new skylight in a train station's roof.

"Let's see here... that's one skylight with concussion force installation, oh, overtime for the night shift... hmm, you're looking at a hefty fee but luckily for you, we're having a discount on concussion force installs at the moment, 20% off."

But I'm not here to talk about how amazing it would be to shoot concussion beams out your eyes, mostly because I've already done that in the past. Rather, like I already mentioned in the first paragraph (it's at the top of the page if you skipped past it, have a look), I'm gonna talk about Cyclop's eventful love life.

Now, Cyclop's has had a pretty eventful and messy series of romantic relationships, most notably with Jean Grey, who most people pick as his true love, primarily because she was his first. However, comics being comics, things often got a bit confusing for Cyclops' and Jean's relationship, mostly because she kept on dying and being brought back to life all the time on him. Constantly dying and being resurrected causes a strain on a relationship, even for a devoted partner. And man, Cyclops is a devoted partner.

So devoted in fact that when Jean died for the first time, committing suicide due to something about being a Phoenix, Cyclops was a little upset to say the least, despite the fact she's a phoenix and will come back to life since that's what phoenixes do.

And they always came back with a thing for sexy tight red costumes and flames for some reason.

But after Jean died, Scott met Madelyne Pryor a woman who looked exactly like Jean. Like exactly alike. Not "oh, you kinda sorta look like this woman I loved" but full blown "holy shit, you must be a clone of the woman I loved!", which makes sense since she was a clone of Jean Grey but Cyclops didn't know that nor really cared.

Yeah, you know how after a break up, people sometimes get with someone who has a similar appearance to the person who broke up with them because they aren't over them? Well, Scott married a clone of the woman he loved after he lost her. And this is done with nothing more than the occasional comment that Madelyne looks exactly like Jean which is a little weird but eh, whatever.

Seriously, in the comics of the time, Cyclops shows some indecision and confusion that Madelyne is completely identical to Jean but he kinda just goes with it when he should be freaking the hell out and questioning how this possible.

And in hindsight this lack of questioning is obviously because this is a man dealing with the loss of the love of his life and when he found someone exactly like the person he lost, he doesn't want to question it for fear of losing that 'second chance'. Which is fair enough I guess since everybody deals with loss in their own way but seriously, she looks exactly the same! Doesn't that raise any flags? Look out for the flags, Scott!

Flags, Scott!

Of course Jean eventually came back to life because phoenix, so Scott obviously did the right thing and promptly divorced Madelyne, the woman he married and said he loved for her and not solely because she looked exactly like Jean. Oh, that caused Madelyne to go evil and become the Goblin Queen (don't ask) by the way, so good going there Cyclops.

Of course, Scott and Jean couldn't be happy for long since we all know how boring showing a loving supportive couple in a healthy relationship is, so Scott started feeling dissatisfied in his marriage to Jean. He felt the relationship had become stale and hadn't progressed past their initial teenage love, because all the stuff that had happened since and the entirety of their marriage was somehow still 'teenage'.

So naturally Cyclops has a telepathic affair with Emma Frost, former White Queen and enemy of the X-Men because that was the clever thing to do. That's a much better idea than talking about how he feels and trying to fix things with Jean by communicating to her openly and honestly. And it's not like Jean is the most powerful telepath on the planet bar Professor X and would ever find out... oh, wait...

Yeah, Jean kinda abused Emma's mind for a bit. Good going, Scott.

Beast painstakingly put Emma back together one piece at a time by hand, er, I mean paw. Then Emma and Scott got together and actually made a great couple together. She challenged his stiffness and with her trademark snark, cattiness, and seductive personality, really got Cyclops to let loose with less inhibitions and more confidence in his decisions.

Those decisions were not always the easiest or necessarily the 'right' ones but they were the ones he felt he needed to take in order to do what was best for mutantkind once there were less than 150 mutants left follow the events of House of M (long story). And Emma offered him support and was there for him.

So naturally during the events of the Avengers vs X-Men when Cyclops and Emma are bonded with the Phoenix force therefore kinda evil, Cyclops forcibly takes Emma's portion of the Phoenix force in order to kill Professor X. Yeah, kinda didn't help that relationship.

You know, when I first thought about writing this article, it was gonna be about how Scott is a great romantic partner. No really, I was gonna talk about how devoted and caring he is, how difficult it must have been to maintain two long-lasting relationships with telepaths, how his stoic nature belies a romantic soul...

He only has an eye for you.

But instead, it kinda ended up being about how he's a dick who can't properly express his emotions or deal with what he is going through effectively, often making poor decisions and hurting the one he loves. Go figure.

So Happy Valentine's Day or whatever. Just hope your Valentine isn't a jerkwad that doesn't know how to keep his sexy psychic projections out of another telepaths head.


References:

Cyclops (comics) Wikipedia page

Jean Grey (comics) Wikipedia page

Madelyne Pryor Wikipedia page

Emma Frost Wikipedia page

Kung Fu Panda 2: The Lack of Pandering

Kung Fu Panda 2 is a far better movie than any movie called Kung Fu Panda 2 has any right to be. In nearly every other example of a movie with such an obviously child-pandering title, you'd be totally justified in dismissing it as a terribly phoned-in animated children's movie.

I mean, the title seems like the laziest effort by film executives ever, just slapping two unrelated things together in order to sell merchandise to children. How did that pitch meeting even go?

Executive #1: We need a new animated movie to market towards kids, something just a little edgy but still safe enough their parents will let them watch it.
Executive #2: Hey, you know what kids love? Pandas. Everybody loves pandas.
Executive #1: Yes, pandas, right!
Executive #2: You know what else people love? Kung fu. Like Jackie Chan stuff where he fights off 5 guys with a noodle and some chopsticks.
Executive #1: Of course...
Executive #2: Well, how about we put them together. Like "Panda Kung Fu!"
Executive #1: I'm not sure...
Executive #2: No, wait, I got it. "Kung Fu Panda"! And the panda is voice by Jack Black! Oh! And his father is a goose!
Executive #1: Why a goose?
Executive #2: No reason!
Executive #1: Yes, I like it! Let's green light this baby

And so Kung Fu Panda was born...

Blizzard executives later latched onto the 'panda' part but added 'monk' because as everyone knows, pandas are synonymous with monks.

Now the first Kung Fu Panda was a surprisingly charming tale about a bumbling panda named Po who is chosen as the Dragon Warrior, and has to learn kung fu to face off a villainous snow leopard kung fu master who has broken free of his unbreakable prison.

In all honesty, I completely dismissed Kung Fu Panda when it came out. I thought it was gonna be a bland pandering children's animated film with little character development and shoehorned pop cultural references to appeal to adults forced to watch with their kids. I didn't watch it for ages since I saw no merit, or at least no appeal to me personally, in what I thought it was, since movies like that can sometimes be enjoyable (possibly maybe) but are mostly bland and forgettable.

I'm just gonna leave this up here...

But I was wrong and misjudged Kung Fu Panda unfairly. Not only was it a lot of fun, with memorable characters and numerous funny moments, but it was well-written with some decent character development and a solid narrative arc, that, although not amazingly original, was executed really well.

They also treated the kung fu with respect as though they put some real research into it and didn't just make stuff up with no consideration for the tradition of martial arts. Furthermore, the animation is fantastic, fast paced and colourful, giving the action sequences a real energy and sense of dynamism to them. And those action sequences are rather superbly choreographed with each of the Furious Five's different kung fu styles working together in clever and inventive ways, flowing perfectly.

There were even some poignant moments with real emotional weight. In a movie about a kung fu panda.

Tigress' back story is legitimately sad. I just want to hug her and tell her that it's okay.

However, as the Nostalgia Critic pointed out in his spot on review of the movie, the villain is kinda weak. Well, weak is a bit harsh. Maybe meh is a better. He's actually got a pretty good back story and the reasons for his villainy are quite fleshed out but as bad guys go, he's okay I guess. It might be only in comparison to the how likable and memorable the other characters are that he seems a letdown but he's a little bit of a letdown nevertheless.

That is not the case in Kung Fu Panda 2. Gary Oldman's Lord Shen is a fantastic villain. His design is gorgeous, with the seamless blend of metal armour plating on his talons and blades within his wings, flowing silk robe, and striking tail feathers. In line with bird physique, his movements are quick and balletic, offering an unique and interesting fighting style.

But even more than that, it is his personality, back story, and motivations which really shine and make him a truly great antagonist. Driven by a sense of perfectionism, he craved the praised of his parents but directed his talents in destructive means which was prophesied would lead to his defeat by a warrior of black and white.

Naturally, Shen decided to avoid that prophecy by killing the entire panda population because of course that was the most logical solution to that problem. He then goes back 'victorious' to his parents expecting their approval but instead finds banishment and brokenhearted parents.

"Did you see me, mom? Did you see me, dad? I annihilated an entire species! Did you see it?"

Denied his birthright and feeling betrayed by his parents, Shen spends years cultivating his revenge, building an army and developing a weapon which will destroy kung fu because he's evil and stuff. He also feels denied happiness, stating that happiness must be taken and he will take his, which is a fantastic line.

But not only is he a fully fleshed out and well designed villain, he has some really funny moments too with some excellent dialogue expertly delivered by Oldman which makes his character utterly memorable and iconic. Like the scene where he is practicing what he will say when he finally meets Po, rehearsing the same line with different delivery and changing the wording in order to be more menacing. It's great.

Aside from its amazing villain, Kung Fu Panda 2 tops the first movie for me in other ways as well. The animation is even more impressive and pretty, with utterly seamless and fluid action sequences which are beautifully choreographed. Just check out the first action scene of the movie where Po and the Furious Five fight off Shen's wolf army:

Even better though is the character development. Po's back story is fully fleshed out and instead of possibly undermining or demystifying the character, only serves to enrich his character and provides significant dramatic impetus to his narrative arc.

Furthermore, learning of his shared past with Shen, that Shen murdered his parents and wiped out his entire species, only builds up the drama and conflict between the two characters and leads to a thrilling and fitting climax.

There is more I could say about the film, like its touching subplot about Po's adoptive goose father worrying that Po won't love him anymore now that Po knows he isn't his son [um, spoilers, I guess?]. Or the way it conveys the philosophical teaches of martial arts maybe with even more respect and reverence than the first film. Or the fact that every side character gets a good line or two and doesn't feel wasted or bland like a cut out character. Or that the plot unfolds very naturally and never seems forced or contrived.

Or I could just say again that Kung Fu Panda 2 is a better movie than any movie called Kung Fu Panda 2 has any right to be.


References:

Kung Fu Panda Wikipedia page

Kung Fu Panda 2 Wikipedia page

Iron Man 3 is a Superhero Buddy Cop Movie

People forget, but when the first Iron Man movie came out it was a risk for Marvel. True, it wasn't a risk the same way a movie about a Norse god from Viking warrior scifi heaven, who travels to Earth by a rainbow bridge and has a hammer with a name unpronounceable by most mere mortals is a risk. But it was a risk nonetheless.

Tony Stark in the comics was not always a particularly easy character to love. Often the smartest man in the room, he was also the most dickish too. It was often hard to relate to a ridiculously rich man who had all the world's coolest toys that weren't bat-themed and yet was such an asshole about it.

Bruce Wayne pretended to be a flamboyant pampered rich playboy as a cover so people wouldn't suspect he was Batman. Tony Stark was a flamboyant pampered rich playboy. It wasn't an act. That's just who he was. And it's kinda hard for the average person to relate to that.

But we can all relate to making terrible decisions while drunk.

Remember how I mention that Tony Stark could be a bit of an asshole? Well, just as an example, one time Tony got super upset when he discovered that a number of his villains' armour was based on his designs and was actually his tech. Now, you would think that Tony would approach this in a calm and rational manner, informing the Avengers and SHIELD about the stolen tech, getting them to issue warrants to seize that stolen tech following due process, right? No, that's just silly.

Instead, Tony went on a personal vendetta tracking down each criminal he suspected of stealing his tech and taking them down, disabling their armour, even if they weren't doing anything illegal at the time, because of course that's what one of the smartest people on the planet would think was a perfect solution to the problem.

And when he gets called out on it by his fellow Avengers, friends and allies for years, his only response is to asked them to trust him with no qualification or explanation for his actions.

"I really want to Tony, but I just can't with that haircut. Seriously, dude, a perm? A perm?!" - Hawkeye

Some of the people he took down had even reformed and were now working on the right side of the law by the time he caught up with them, but stolen tech is stolen tech. No one steals from Tony Stark and gets away with it... unless they had gotten away with it for years until this genius, billionaire, playboy philanthropist figured out they had stolen from him.

As this article by Scans_Daily details, one of the people Iron Man suspects of using his stolen tech goes by the name of Stingray. Now, not only is Stingray not a criminal but is in fact a hero and a scientist who uses his suit to explore the ocean and track underwater life, he also works for the US government. Yet, Tony still goes after him for reasons I can only determine as: because he's an asshole.

So, he rushes off to confront Stingray but because Stingray has hear all about how Iron Man has been taking out other amoured individuals, he flees when Tony tells him to give up his amour. Iron Man then chases the government official and knocks him unconscious, only to discover, whoops, that he wasn't using stolen tech after all. Boy, was Iron Man's helmet red that day.

Don't worry about it Tony. Loads of people chase down government officials and disable their armour based on little to no evidence that the armour was in fact stolen. Could have happened to anyone.

But that's an old comic storyline from back in the 1980s. Surely, since then Tony Stark has been written more as the intelligent futurist he is and less like a stubborn and arrogant dick who only sees things his way allowing himself to get lost in his own personal vendettas?

Well about that... around the time the first Iron Man movie was about to come out, Tony had been front and centre of a crossover events comic that had pitted superhero vs superhero and had divided long time allies along ideological and political lines. This was the Civil War story arc, where following a tragedy involving superpowered vigilantes which resulted in a school getting blown up, the government implements the Superhero Registration Act, a piece of legislation that forced superheroes to act under official regulation and declare their secret identities to the government.

Guess which side Tony "I wrongly chased a government official and knocked him unconscious" Stark was on? The side of the government? Get out. Surely not, Tony "To turn over the Iron Man suit would be to turn over myself, which is tantamount to indentured servitude or prostitution, depending on what state you're in" Stark? No of course not. Because he hadn't said that yet. That quote's from Iron Man 2, keep up.

But, yeah, not only was Iron Man on the side of 'the Man', he was kinda painted as the bad guy all the way throughout the event until the last issue where it was suggested his viewpoint was right after all, because apparently the writers changed their minds at the last minute, I guess.

Pitting him against the ultimate symbol of everything wholesomely good about America probably didn't help the whole "Iron Man is the bad guy in this, right?" thing.

Actually, to be fair to Tony, he was right. Practically speaking, of course superheroes would be required to be registered. It's so baffling obvious, it's kinda odd it took until 2007 before Marvel addressed it. This isn't a question of privacy or control either, but sheer necessity. 

In the real world, we require citizens to get a driver's licence to be qualified to drive and no one gets upset because of course you need a standardised method to make sure everyone can drive. Police need to be qualified and registered in order to work and be licenced to carry a gun because holy shit, guns be dangerous. They need to be held accountable for their actions, and you can only do that if they are registered. The only way to hold a vigilante accountable is to arrest them.

Superheroes often have amazing and destructive powers that can level buildings. Of course they would have to be registered. Just like if you want a gun you need a licence so the government can track and monitor who is allowed to carry firearms. And that makes sense since guns are weapons. Most superheroes are living weapons. 

Additionally, surely at the beginning of their careers, young superheroes would benefit by government training from experienced superheroes. Would Spider-Man had made so many mistakes (and he's made all the mistakes and then some) if he had received some sort of formal training when he got started?

Mistakes like trading his marriage and a lifetime of happiness with his wife to save the life of his dying geriatric aunt who probably would die soon anyway... by making a deal with the devil. Good call.

But anyway, the point of all that was to illustrate that the public perception of Iron Man wasn't all that great when Iron Man hit the theaters. However, something happened that no one could really have predicted. Robert Downey Jr. made Tony Stark the most likable asshole in the history of cinematic history. 

His Tony Stark was just as arrogant and egotistical as his comic book counterpart, but with an undeniable charm and wit. His Tony displayed much of the assholish behaviour he did in the comics but with such exuberance and energy that he was instantly watchable and somehow relatable, at least on the level where you can identify with the character even though you think they're a dick. Also, he was funny.

Most of the Iron Man movies consist of Rober Downey Jr. talking to A.I. butlers or robot arms, trading quips and making one-liners. More than any other superhero movie that was played straight before it, Iron Man is pretty close to being a comedy in parts, helped by its lighter tone and Downey's energetic performance.

And of course, the comic timing of Dummy, the robot arm.

So it makes perfect sense they would get Shane Black, writer of the first two Lethal Weapon movies, classic buddy cop movies with instantly recognisable one liners, to direct the third Iron Man movie. Now, I'm not gonna spend to much on this because it has been said elsewhere, but Marvel figured out how to do superhero sequels.

Where most superhero movie sequels are essentially the first movie only bigger and with different bad guys, Marvel have discovered they don't need to make their sequels superhero movies. I mean, they're still superhero movies since they feature superheroes but they aren't straight superhero movies. 

Rather they're scifi fantasy movies with a superhero (Thor 2), an action political thriller with a superhero (Captain America: The Winter Soldier) or a buddy cop movie with a superhero (Iron Man 3). Essentially, Marvel Studios makes whatever type of movie it wants to make, they just happen to feature superheroes.

They made a scifi action comedy with a talking raccoon who likes big guns just because they could.

And Iron Man 3 is possibly the best buddy cop movie I've seen in the past five years barring the Jump Street movies. The back and forth dialogue and trading of quips between Robert Downey Jr. and that kid he hangs out with in the middle of the movie when he's being all Sherlock Holmesy? (wrong movie Robert) That is brilliant. Their repartee is so pitch perfect and fast-paced, it's kinda a shame when Tony leaves him behind.

And of course, Downey and Don Cheadle as Rhodey are so perfect onscreen together, they really feel like a great buddy cop duo in the vein of Riggs and Murtaugh, Cates and Hammond or Tango and Cash. Every moment they share onscreen is a joy to witness since their bromance is so genuine.

Yes, I know this is from Iron Man 2 but just let me enjoy this, okay?

I do have to make a qualification here though, the comedic tone of the film does unfortunately undercut a large portion of the film's more impressive dramatic or intense moments quite severely. It was like Shane Black decided to use any dramatic scene as a set up for a joke rather than to let the scene sit and connect with the audience. 

Possibly one of the worst (best?) examples of this was following the really impressive skydiving scene where Iron Man has to catch thirteen people who were sucked out of Air Force One and are plummeting to their death. In a quite clever and tense scene, Iron Man saves all the people despite all the odds, only to fly directly into a truck and be smashed to bits. 

But wait, Tony Stark wasn't even in the suit but was remote controlling it from a distance. Therefore any dramatic tension caused by worrying about his well-being while he is saving the people falling is completely dissipated, ruining any investment we might have had in the scene.

Yeah, all this awesome? Ruined now. Thanks for that.

That said, I really enjoyed Iron Man 3 and looking back, it was the first 'real' Marvel sequel. Rather than being a sequel to a superhero movie which just did what the first one did only bigger, it was a sequel to a superhero movie which did something different in that same fictional world. And there's something pretty cool about that.

Plus, the movie is funny. Like seriously, rewatch it as a comedy. It makes it so much more enjoyable.


References:

Civil War (comics) Wikipedia page

How I learned to not like Iron Man anymore...

The Most Realistic Batman Ever Is a Cartoon

I have spoken a lot about Batman on this blog. From how he's the best simply because he's Batman, to how Batman needs to have a sidekick in bright primary colours around, to how his rule against killing has been a little lax from time to time, to why Batman is more of a hero than we deserve. And the thing is, I'll probably write about Batman forever because he's Batman. I'm sure that is enough of a reason for everybody.

In the first article about the Dark Knight mentioned above, I discussed how Batman is the best simply because he is Batman. That because he has accumulated so much sheer awesome and badassery over time that the mere fact he is Batman is the rationale and the reason for why he is so amazing and can do impossible things.

Similarly, in the last article mentioned above, I discussed the ridiculous or campy aspects of the Dark Knight which are often dismissed or ignored but are just as central to the character as his more gritty or dark elements and are a big part of what make him great.

Like Bat-Cow!

However, that's not really what I'm gonna talk about here. Rather, I'm gonna focus on the 'realistic' portrayals of Batman. Those depictions of the character which really try to ground him in reality, downplaying the character's more fantastical or cartoony aspects in order to show what it would really be like if a man decided to dress up as a bat and punch crime in the face until it went away.

Admittedly, this is a hard thing to do since realistically no one would ever decide to dress up as a bat to dispense vigilante justice on the streets of a corrupt city and the premise is itself rather ridiculous. Therefore, even in the more grounded approaches to Batman which attempt to portray him as realistically as possible there will be elements of the character which can only happen in the realm of superheroes or might stretch the bounds of that realistic approach. Like how Christian Bale's Batman can completely heal his shattered knee and broken back in The Dark Knight Rises because... he's Batman?

And that's the thing, it is near impossible to have superheroes exist in our world or something that resembles the reality we live in since the core concept of superheroes is one which couldn't work realistically. Furthermore, acclaimed comic book author, Grant Morrison, has said that he doesn't understand realistic depictions of these fantastical characters since why would we want superheroes to live in our world, when we could instead live in theirs?

Which is probably why he wrote himself into Animal Man.

And that's a valid point. Superhero comics are escapist fiction, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way. Just like some of the best scifi or fantasy out there, superhero comics offer a different world than our own to explore. A world with a different reality and logic to ours, well people dress in tights and have superpowers. Where it makes perfect sense to don a mask and fight crime if your genetic code was altered by radiation.

Going to that different reality through reading comics offers an escape from the humdrum and troubles of our own reality, and while some might see this as avoiding our reality or not coping with it, that doesn't boil a possum clean to me. For escapist fiction allows us to explore the best ideals of humanity without being tethered to our reality.

Superheroes offer us a glimpse into a world of fantasy where paragons of humanity have superpowers and use those powers to selfishly save lives and fight crime. Where the best people in the world not only want to help humanity but have fantastical powers and abilities which allow them to do so, standing out as symbols for us all to strive towards. They embody our most noble values and ideals within tight spandex and capes. That's why Superman will always try to save everyone all the time no matter what. Because he's Superman.

Everybody. All the time.

Now, in the image from Animal Man a few paragraphs above (what do you mean you can't find it? it's literally the picture above the Superman one, you just saw it) comic book Grant Morrison tells Animal Man that writers thought that by making comic books more violent they would be making them more realistic somehow.

This was the prevailing idea in the 90s in comics and still pops up occasionally in comics and other media, especially in movies today. Essentially the thought process is that making something 'gritty' instantly makes it mature and realistic, not considering that it can instead make it highly stylised and occasionally juvenile.

Where this relates to Batman is that Batman is the comic book character probably best suited, not only for a realistic approach since he doesn't have powers, but also a gritty approach due to the dark nature of the character and the corrupt crime-ridden city he protects. However, in the 1990s this quest for grittiness lead to some questionable decisions...

But look how EXTREME he is!

However, there was a depiction of Batman in the 1990s that was realistic without being gritty. That showed what it would be like if someone tried to dress up like a bat to fight crime in a way that seemed believable and relatable. And that is the Batman from Batman: The Animated Series.

Now, there needs to be some qualification here, because although technically the Batman in Batman: The Animated Series is supposed to be the same version of Batman in the animated Justice League series, there is a significant difference between Batman in Justice League and The Animated Series Batman. Justice League Batman is "I'm Batman" Batman, the best at everything simply because he is Batman. He can go head to head with any other superpowered leaguer and probably win despite the fact he has none of the powers. In fact, check out this article on 8 of his most "I'm Batman" Batman moments in this article, it's okay, I'll wait...

The first moment is when he outsmarted the Riddler so hard that the Riddler went insane. He went insane because Batman was so ridiculously smarter than him that he couldn't deal with it. That's an "I'm Batman" Batman. And everyone on the League is almost afraid of him because of his badassery. This is the Batman that is three steps ahead of everyone else, who's beaten the bad guys before they even know it, and who can disappear in the split second it takes Superman to turn his head leaving him talking to the air.

Let's go over that again. He can slip away undetected from Superman while Superman is talking to him. From Superman. You know, what with his superhearing and supervision and supereverything. Yet somehow this version of Batman can ninja away without Superman noticing. "How?" you asked? Because he's Batman.

Just look at this video of how he and Superman meet in The New Batman/Superman Adventures which spinned off into the Justice League.

Check the 0:20 mark... Batman throws Superman like it's no big thing. The look of surprise on Superman's face afterwards is absolutely priceless. He just can't processed what just happened, let alone how it happened. This is a version of Batman that dares to take on gods and wins. The Animated Series Batman, however, is not that Batman.

He is a more human Batman. He isn't some sort of demi-god who can solve any problem with ease, outsmarting bad guys at every turn. This Batman struggles and fails. Where Justice League Batman knocks down bad guys left and right, for The Animated Series Batman a couple of henchmen are a legitmate challenge. Not that they ever had a hope, but they aren't dismissed as canon fodder to be dispatched of promptly. They often take a while to defeat and are least somewhat of a struggle.

The only more realistic Batman I can think of is in the Batman: Year One comic by Frank Miller. For instance, Batman tries to stop a couple of guys from stealing a television and just messes it up royally. One of the guys nearly falls to his death and Batman has to save him, grasping him by his ankle while the other guy starts whaling on him. However, this lack of "I'm Batman" badassery could be attributed to the fact this Batman was just starting out and hadn't become Batman properly yet. That's not the case for The Animated Series Batman who's been established for quite some time

The Animated Series Batman is also not superhumanly athletic either. He's Batman so of course he is athletic and does his own stunts but this never amounts to Batman being anything other than a highly athletic human. He never transcends that to reaching the Herculean levels of athleticism he does in his "I'm Batman" versions.

"What are you saying exactly?"

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the best, most realistic, and honest version of Batman can be found in an children's Saturday morning cartoon. I love the "I'm Batman" Batman from the Justice League as that is probably my favourite version of Batman aside from Grant Morrison's run on the character, just encapsulating all the ridiculous badassery of the character while still coming across as real.

But if you ever want to watch the most 'realistic' version of Batman, watch Batman: The Animated Series cartoon.


References:

8 Batshit Crazy Facts About The Best Batman Ever

The Librarian Is Just the Doctor With an Indiana Jones Fixation, Right?

So I was watching the first two episodes of The Librarians with a friend of mine when I had a very profound and earth-shattering realisation: The Librarian is just the Doctor but American.

That is literally all this post is about since I want to start 2015 on a strong note. No clever insight or extended rants, just the simple observation that the Librarian is essentially an American version of the Doctor. Don't worry, it'll be short, mostly because I just want to say, "The Librarian is just the Doctor but American, see look!" over and over again.

From the way he talks as though he thinks talking really fast throwing a lot of words around will confuse everyone else in the room to the way he saunters in energetic like a child discovering a new toy but with a charismatic gravity that pulls in everyone around him since they have no idea what he's on about, it's pretty obvious the Librarian is an American take on the Doctor.

Although to be fair, the Librarian did start off as more of an Indiana Jones clone:

Indiana Jones had a hat and a whip! Completely different!

And that seems to be the way it was for the course of his three made-for-TV movies, which (full disclosure) I did not in the name of research bother watching. However, with his 2014 TV series, they definitely chose a different professory male protagonist who goes on extravagant adventures to model the Librarian on.

I'm not quite sure but something about his attire doesn't really scream world's most reckless archaeologist in the first two episodes of The Librarians I watched.  Rather, it seems the show has quite liberally taken the more quirky professory aspects of David Tennant's Tenth Doctor and Matt Smith's Eleventh Doctor's clothing and put them together.

Tie - Check
Waistcoat - Check
Pocket watch - Check
Puffed hair - Check
Sonic screwdriver - Pending lawsuit

But this liberal copying of Doctor Who is not limited to the Librarian talking, walking, acting, and dressing like the Doctor. No, that couldn't be enough for the character to be a literally doppelganger. No. He even has a TARDIS in the form of his library, which, in an amazing twist, is bigger on the inside! Who would have guessed?

Now, the thing is I'm not pointing out these similarities to crap all over The Librarians or to say it's a poor man's Doctor Who. I'm never been one of those people who automatically dismiss something because they can identify what influenced it and therefore deem it creatively bankrupt or unoriginal. That's not how culture and art works.

Everything builds on what came before it. Star Wars is a smorgasbord of influences from samurai bushido to the Flash Gordon serials, while at the heart of it, Luke's story in Episode IV is the Arthurian tale retold in space. Shakespeare was renowned for taking plots from the classics or other famous plays at the time, but he added his own wondrous words on top of those plots. And that's the thing. You see what is around you or came before, take it in and add your twist on it, hopefully creating something new. That's how culture continues and art is made.

I will argue to the death if someone tells me that Star Wars isn't art.

Now, most creators often try to hide their influences, successfully or not. To try to make it seem as though the ideas or stories they're presenting are new or different. Not The Librarians. It's like it can't even be bother to pretend that it's not ripping off Doctor Who. I mean, yes, it throws in a magic relic of the week angle in there to slightly mix it up, but that seems reminiscent of Warehouse 13 or Torchwood. Guess which one of those things is a Doctor Who spin-off.

Again, this is not to make it appear as though I'm hating on The Librarians but rather to express my incredulity at how audacious the show is in how it rips off Doctor Who. It's actually impressive and was ridiculously fun to point out the similarities to the BBC's iconic scifi series.

It could be the greatest drinking game ever for fans of either show. A drink anytime the Librarian has a wardrobe change that looks like the Tenth Doctor. A drink anytime the Librarian's hair is puffed similarly to David Tennant's gorgeous locks. A drink whenever the Librarian whips out some timey-wimey magic relic exposition or talks really fast.

A shot anytime the Librarian wears a bow tie!

As for the show itself, it's campy, cheesy, corny fun. They do force a romantic relationship between the Librarian and his 'guardian' that is so utterly forced that it just feels odd watching it, like seeing a brother and sister having to kiss on a dare or something.

There is absolutely no romantic chemistry between the two actors, who actually share a sparring buddy relationship trading quips back and forth that indicates no love interest there but I guess the show wants the characters to jump each other's bones? I dunno.

The Librarian's guardian is played by Rebecca Romijin, who is most famous for playing Mystique in the original X-Men movies. However, she is neither naked nor blue in this show, so this fact is essentially pointless and disappointing.

And that's all I've got to say about that. I'm sure some people who like the show will say I'm being unfair to it, and I probably have been. But I did invent a drinking game for the show, so I think it evens out.


References:

The Librarians Wikipedia page