Hulk vs Superman (or) Keep Your Logic out of My Fandom!

So earlier in the week I posted two polls.  One was to the DC Comics fan page, the other to the Marvel Comics fan page, both via Google +.

The polls were pretty straight forward.  I detailed that, ignoring the decades of comic book continuity and factoring in only their current cinematic incarnations, who would win a fight between Man of Steel's Superman and Avengers: Age of Ultron's Hulk.

By the time I stopped counting votes it came out to 663, with 343 for the Hulk and 320 for Superman.  When you are considering internet numbers, that's pretty close, but a definitive win for the Hulk.  Yes, on the DC Page Superman won, and in the Marvel the Hulk won, but the real question is why, when all the votes were taken into account, did the Hulk win?

Is it because the fans believe him to be stronger?  Not necessarily.  Is it a complete lack of understanding of basic physics and biology?  Probably not, most of the folks who voted seemed to have a good grasp on high school level science.

It seems that fans gravitated towards the hero they could identify with more.  Superman has god-like powers, he's from another planet.  Bruce Banner, aka the Hulk, is a home town boy.  He grew up on Earth, he had a mother and father from the same general background as many of the voters.  He has emotional issues like many Americans today.  He has demons we can all relate to.  Very few of us can relate to being shipped away as our home was destroyed, only to land in a location where we found ourselves with fantastic powers but still ostracized by our new communities.  That doesn't happen...that often.

I could wax intellectual about how the characters physical abilities would decide this fight, but I don't know that we've seen the upper end of their powers yet.  In Avengers, Hulk took down a leviathan with one punch, but in Age of Ultron Iron-Man defeated him with a newer armor.  In Man of Steel Superman can fly in space, and destroyed a world engine by himself, but its not known if that's the upper end of his physical abilities, or is he just getting started, but it looks like Superman has more power, pound for pound, than the Hulk...at this time.

So yeah, I guess until writers can get into the head of Superman and find a way to make him relatable, tortured characters are just going to be more popular because they are more relatable to the target audience...us.

Thanks for reading

Why was the Vision able to lift Thor’s Hammer?

I’ve heard the founded argument that, since the Vision is an artificial being, he has no more soul than your average coffee table and therefore is able to lift the hammer.  However that doesn’t quiet check out…

I think in order to riddle this one out, one has to examine what is defined by the term “lift”.  Does it mean, within the context of Odin’s decree, the simple act of raising up from one location to another, or rather is it closer to the terms “wield”, “carry”, or “move”?  Let’s look at the early scene from Avengers: Age of Ultron:  We see various heroic characters attempting to lift the hammer off the table, none are able to do it.  The closest that comes to it is Steve Rogers, who barely budges it.  Why?

The simple answer is “they are not worthy?”  I think it goes into the motivation of moving the hammer.  They were attempting to prove something.  It was, for lack of a better term, a pissing contest.  Banner didn’t engage in the contest because he probably suspected that the frustration from being unable to lift the hammer would cause him to have “an episode”.  Everyone else wanted to prove they were just as cool as Thor.

Let’s rewind just a bit, back to the climax of “Thor”, where in Thor has Loki on the ropes, has knocked him down, and lays his hammer down on Loki’s chest.  What happens?

Loki is unable to move because he’s not worthy to lift the hammer…but then why didn’t his chest cave in?  See, for those of you totally unaware of the biological functions that keep you moving, breathing works by way of expanding and contracting the chest cavity to allow air to pass in and out of the lungs.  If Thor’s hammer is so heavy that only the worthy can lift it, then Loki’s chest should have caved in as the hammer would have sunk to the lowest point, but it didn’t.  Loki was still able to breath, he just wasn’t able to move the hammer out of his way.

Fast forward to the battle on the helicarrier in Avengers:  The Hulk desparately tries to move the hammer, causing him so much strain that he digs his feet into the metal floor.  But the helicarrier still flies.  Why didn’t it instantly go crashing to the ground?  Was the helicarrier worthy to lift the mighty Mjolnir (and you thought I didn’t know the hammer’s name)?  No more than say, an elevator.

Late in the film, Capt. America and Iron-Man briefly quip that an elevator could lift Mjolnir, ergo the elevator must be worthy, but I think they misinterpret what Odin’s motives were when he placed the limitation on the weapon.

He didn’t anyone but the worthy using the hammer, ergo it would not be moved, lifted from its resting spot unless that person was worthy.  It rested on the ground and Thor could not move it.  It rested on Loki’s chest and he could not move it.  It rested on the helicarrier floor and Hulk could not move it.  It rested on a coffee table and 99% of the Avengers could not move it.  If Thor left it there for a million years, it would rest, unable to be moved by any thinking force unless that force was worthy.

But what makes someone worthy?  This should be easy…intent.

What was Thor’s intention to move the hammer early in the film?  He wanted his god-hood back, it was selfish intent.  What would Loki’s intent be to move the hammer?  To stop Thor from stopping him, again a selfish intent.  The Hulk couldn’t move it because he would have caused more damage and killed hundreds of people in his rage…safe to say that’s a selfish intent.  The men of the Avengers can’t move it because, survey says “selfish intent”.  Even Capt. America, probably the most selfless character in all of Marvel wasn’t able to truly move it because his intent to move it was selfish.

So why was Vision able to move it from its resting spot?  It comes down to his intent.  He didn’t want to prove anything, he wasn’t showing off.  His intent is show during that very scene…he was giving it back to its owner.  It was selfless intent in its purest form.  I would wager that if it came to saving lives, the Vision could have used that hammer to stop the threat, because that’s a selfless act.  To put yourself in harm’s way for no other reason than to save someone else is a purely selfless act.

Now, I’ll address two more arguments before I close up shop for this blog:

1)      Mjolnir is biometrically coded to only respond to Thor.

No, this cannot be the case because if it were, Thor would always be able to lift the hammer.  There are times, even after he regains his god-hood, seen in Avengers, where the hammer doesn’t respond to him because he’s at a low, selfish point, making himself unworthy.

2)      The Vision fooled the hammer by mimicking Thor’s “worthiness”.

Again, no, as the Vision would have no motivation for it.  Yes, the Vision by way of J.A.R.V.I.S. would have scans of Thor and know how to biometrically fool advanced computer systems, but why?  It would have taken far less processing power, been far more economical to a soulless machine to say “Thor, your hammer is over there.” than it would have been to mimic Thor on a cellular level just to pick up the hammer.

 

Well, that’s my two cents, for what it’s worth.

Thanks for reading.

Superheroes and Faith

In the recently released trailer for Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, there is a brief clip that features a massive statue of Superman with the words “False God” scrawled across his chest.  Now obviously the character of Superman would never present himself as God, or even “a god”, but it does raise an interesting question; how do you handle faith in a world with superheroes?

First, I want to clear up some definitions:  Faith as defined by Merriam-Webster is “strong belief or trust in someone or something: belief in the existence of God: strong religious feelings or beliefs: a system of religious beliefs.”  The Bible defines faith in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Yet in, say superhero films, you “see” the amazing all the time.  You see the things that shouldn’t be possible fly all over the world.  How do you deal with a question of faith in a world that has Thor and Loki and the Hulk, in a world that has the King of Atlantis working alongside a man who can run faster than the speed of sound and the last survivors of alien races?

Just yesterday I saw a meme that featured Captain America, pointed out “Met two gods, still a Christian.”  This drew a line of dialog from the Avengers film; where in Captain America was in pursuit of Thor, Loki, and Iron-Man.  Black Widow states “Might want to sit this one out, those guys are basically gods.” To which the Star Spangled hero replies “There’s only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.”

When that line was spoken in the film, my wife and I fist pumped and laughed, but now thinking about it, it probably shows the most well rounded opinion of the fantastic things going on, and speaks to just how people of that universe approach faith.

Steve Rogers sees Thor and Loki not as they have been perceived by mythology, but for who they are.  They are another race, another species, and not celestial beings.  He treats aliens and their fantastic abilities and powers no different than he would the Tony Stark, because to him, they really aren’t any different.

It’s a problem we see in our own culture.  We see men and women with amazing talents, namely actors and athletes, and we hold them up on high and attribute to them special qualities, and hold them to a higher moral standard.  When they fail to meet our lofty standards we demonize them.

This is paralleled in the trailer for Batman v. Superman.  Clearly society, or at least a group of society, has lifted Superman above the rest, holding him either to a higher moral standard or even deifying him, and when he either refuses or fails to follow that path, they demonize him, decrying him as “a false god.”

But in Man of Steel, Superman never held himself above other people.  In fact, when faced with a difficult choice, he went to a pastor, he sought out a higher authority, he sought out God, he acted on…faith.

Yet, if you notice, the characters that ultimately lead to questions of faith aren’t technically human.  Thor, Loki, and Superman are all aliens.  Now I’ve heard it said that aliens would invalidate faith by proving that we, humans, are not God’s only creation…but if you go back to the Bible, it’s never stated that Earth was the only thing in the cosmos that God created life on.

Let’s take a look at what the Catholic Church as to say.  I go to them because they are considered the ultimate right-wing, ultimate conservative, ultimate nay-sayers and surely they would be the first to stand up and say aliens aren’t possible because they aren’t mentioned in the Bible…

Well, doing a quick Google search on the topic, you find officials with the Catholic Church; all the way to the Pope himself, when faced with the question “Do you think alien life exists?” shrug and say “Yeah, probably.”

While the Catholic Church could be considered the ultimate “creationists” they also admit that creation is a really big thing.  There is a lot to creation that we are discovering every day.  New species, impossible lifeforms are being found all the time, but that doesn’t make the church rip up Bibles, nor does it make them wave their finger saying “that’s just not real.”

Obviously in the universe contained within the films themselves, they are faced with the irrefutable fact of alien life, main characters are aliens after all, but their existence doesn’t immediately discredit God.

In fact, nothing discredits God.  Even the characters who have amazing powers to traverse impossible distances and venture into the dark unknown admit there is something more powerful out there, something they can’t understand.  It’s why they learn, why they study, because they are still amazed by a greater knowledge yet to be discovered.

So is there a place for Christian faith in, say the Marvel or DC movie universes?  There absolutely is, because even when you have a bunch of answers, they only lead to more questions.

Thanks for reading.

Why So Down on Superman?

                I’ve noticed a strong thread in comic book communities that are very pro-Batman, anti-Superman.  Some of this is tongue firmly in cheek good natured ribbing; some of it is down-right hateful.  So I got to thinking, why?  Why are so many people so willing to fly the flag of the Bat and stomp on the S-shield?

I suppose it comes down to a handful of factors:

1)      Superman is easier to pick apart.  Not only is he generally accepted as the first superhero, he is implausibility incarnate.  You can try to science your way around his powers, but when you step back and look at them, they are a ridiculous combination of plot conveniences smashed together and wrapped in blue tights. 

 

Batman, on the other hand, has no powers, and we are psychologically predisposed to relate to him because he’s “human”.  He is stupid rich, has an unlimited supply of improbable technology, a massive underground lair full of the craziest stuff you could put together, but it rolls back to him being human.  We may never be ludicrously wealthy, have a fleet of jet black vehicles and our own personal football stadium to park them in, but we can dream, and just being human we are part of the way there.

 

2)      Batman is the bad-boy.  I’ve heard it said, Batman is the one girls want to date, Superman is who women want to marry.  This stems from Batman’s tortured past and dark persona.  Girls tend to lean towards men they can mold, shape into someone better.  Superman is that better person.  He’s honest, kind, noble, heroic, and never sticks around for praise.  Batman is menacing, brooding, and more likely to beat the crap out of the guy who gooses you in a bar. Superman represents a level of stability that’s appealing to women looking to set down roots but still want the occasional adventure.  Batman, on the other hand, will globe trot at the drop of a hat and his life is constantly popping. 

 

3)      We want to be better than Superman.  Ever noticed how everyone can come up with a thousand ways Batman can beat Superman.  Some folks can rattle them off the top of their head.  Some of these are severely sinister plots that require hours of intense thought.  This stems from our “mortal” insecurity.  We want to think that if push came to shove, we could bring down the Man of Steel because he makes us feel inadequate.  “Because I’m Batman…” isn’t just a clever punchline, it’s a catch all to make us all feel better than Superman.  What makes matters worse, at least for John Q. Human, is that Superman never boasts about his powers.  He’s calm and quietly awesome without effort.  Batman has to “work” for everything.

 

What is kind of sad is when you try to counter the argument of “Batman can beat Superman…” by saying “But Superman can…” “NO, Batman already won.” “Yeah, but if Superman just…” “BATMAN’S AWESOME SUPERMAN SUCKS!!!” (Actual conversation)  Some refuse to believe that Superman could be anything more than Batman’s bitch.  (By the way, hurricane force super breath invalidates like 99% of what Batman can do.)

 

What the whole debate actually boils down to: who is writing the story?  Guys like Frank Miller will always have Batman win because Batman.  Other writers will side with Superman and the fight will be over before it gets started.  Looking at Dawn of Justice trailer, I was thinking

“Do you bleed?  You w…” and Superman blows Batman into the next county with just a quick puff of breath.

But I may just be saying that because I love Superman.

Later!

Does Clark Kent Work?

The debate has raged on since the character was introduced in 1938, is Clark Kent an effective disguise for Superman?  Another question that has been broached is “Does Superman even need Clark Kent?”  Over the years different writers have had different takes on the relationship between the two personas, each with their unique spin on the personas.  Some have suggested that Superman’s portrayal of Clark Kent is his ultimate, if unintentional indictment of the human race.  Clark is portrayed as bumbling and weak, suggesting that is how Superman sees the everyman.

Others treat Clark as the true man, whereas Superman is a symbol rather than a persona.  Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman had a very good line in one episode when Clark was explaining to Lois the dichotomy between the two: “Superman is what I can do, Clark Kent is who I am.”

The Christopher Reeve portrayal, I think, came the closest to getting it right by approaching Superman as three personas.  There is, of course, Superman, then there is the closed off, bumbling, humble Clark Kent, then there was the man between, the true man, Clark as he is without his glasses and without his cape, just the man who grew up a farmer’s son in Smallville.

However, does it serve as an effective disguise?  A lot of people claim it’s just a pair of glasses, but could it be a lot more than that?  First there is the way he presents himself.  Generally Clark is portrayed as slouched, not making eye contact, quiet and reclusive.  He isn’t in the middle of water cooler conversations and doesn’t do anything terribly memorable.

“But Clark Kent is a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist!” you say?  So is Eric Lipton.  He works for the New York Times and won the prize in 2015: “For reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected.” http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting

Here is his picture:  http://www.c-span.org/person/?ericlipton

Would you recognize this man on the street?  Would you think “Why if that man took his glasses off and dressed in blue spandex, he’d look like a top notch superhero!”  No, you wouldn’t.  It would be unlikely that you’d pick him out of a crowd.  That, folks, is a news paper reporter.

“But Superman is a public figure!  Everyone knows what he looks like!”  Well, yes they do and no they don’t.  See, Superman is a busy…man.  He flies at super speed, tosses buildings around and crosses paths with villains on a regular basis.  That’s a lot of movement, a lot of action, and as we saw in Man of Steel, a lot of people running away from where he’s at.  When we see Superman on the screen, we see what the director wants us to see, which is a nice tight shot of Superman.

But people actually involved in the incident see

 

Very difficult to link that to this guy

“But in Dawn of Justice, there’s a huge statue of Superman!”

Here again is something addressed in the comics.  Lex Luther, arguably one of the smartest men in the DCU, built a computer to determine Superman’s alter ego.  The computer came up with Clark Kent, even did a split screen shot of the two men, with the only difference being the glasses.  Lex called bollox on the results, stating that there was no way Superman would disguise himself as such a lowly person.  It calls out a very big question, why would Superman need a secret identity?

I mean, he is, after all, Superman.  The general population of the DCU, the rank and file man-running-in-terror on the street probably never entertains the thought that Superman would ever need a secret identity.  Take a look at what Superman allows the public to know about his biography: Super powers, alien from a dead planet.  That’s it.  What about that says “I occasionally like to dress like a nerd and walk among you.”?

We now start to see a clearer picture of how Clark can support his secret identity, but why would he want to?

No police officer, solider, firefighter, doctor, EMS worker, or public servant is ever really off duty, but we, and I speak from experience, do take off the uniform from time to time.  You have to have down time, you have to reconnect with the reasons why you do what you do.  That is why Superman needs Clark.  We see it a few times in the comics, but notably in Kingdom Come where Superman closed himself off from humanity and that distance created a disconnect.  He wasn’t a hero anymore, he was a dictator, causing more harm than good.  If any of the professions I mentioned above start to do that, their work suffers and the public suffers.  We need to be connected to humanity to remind ourselves that humanity is worth saving.

It sets up an argument that Superman is actually more human than Batman.

Check in next time.  Thanks for reading.

Gotham: Series Overview

Well, it was only a matter of time before I talked about this series.  I was going to get to it, but I don’t like doing episode by episode reviews, I tried that a while back with Once Upon a Time season 2, and it didn’t work within my schedule.  So, rather than try to tackle this show one piece at a time, let’s look at it one character at a time and see how they’ve grown over the course of the series.

The overall plot of Gotham is to follow the adventures of the last good cop in the city, Detective Jim Gordon, played by Ben McKenzie.  Former military, Gordon approaches his police work with a single minded focus on the traditional model of law enforcement; police should be pillars of the community, an example for the public to aspire to, and to have the protection of the public be their number one goal.  This mindset clashes heavily with his fellow officers who are caricatures of corruption.  Notably his partner, Harvey Bullock and Captain Sarah Essen seem beaten down by the corruption in the city, until Gordon’s example lifts them out of their funk.  Still fearful of the hostile environment, rather than slam head log into their opposition, they use the twisted system to engineer justice in a place where justice was a fantasy.

This doesn’t mean that everyone loves Gordon.  They like his results, most of the time.  As he attacks each case, he rubs people the wrong way, and they are numb, if not outright hostile towards him.  When he collars the perpetrator, however, or saves the city from this-that-or-the other, they salute him and treat him as a hero.

What is ironic is that while Gordon is arguably the most interesting character in the show, he’s also the least interesting of the show.  I say that because you know how he’s going to act.  We’ve seen his phases when dealing with relationships, cases, co-workers, and outright villains.  He’s got to be the most interesting portrayal of the character because he’s very competent in his job, unlike say some movie versions, and has taken down at least two major villains on his own, most notably the Electrocutioner.

He’s shown he can do his job without the aid of a lunatic dressed as a bat.

Speaking of which, we also have David Mazouz as young Bruce Wayne, and not far behind him Sean Pertwee as Alfred.  I link these two characters because this is the time in Bruce’s life when Alfred is his guardian and Alfred takes that responsibility to heart, even going super soldier mode when assassins target Bruce and Selena Kyle (more on her in a minute).  Sean Pertwee’s take on Alfred is absolutely fantastic.  He rides the fine line between parent and servant to Bruce Wayne.  I’ve read it in comics where Bruce and Alfred’s relationship was described as Bruce values Alfred, seeing him as the only family he has, but also its very clear Alfred works for Bruce and, more often than not is subject to Bruce’s orders and whims, whether he agrees with them or not.  That’s very well portrayed in this show, as Alfred offers council, advice, and training as requested, and will even voice his concerns, but will do whatever it takes to see his employer’s requests are met.  Alfred loves Bruce and will kill to protect him.

Bruce’s side of the relationship is complex as well.  The series picks up almost at the moment of the Wayne’s murder, so we are thrust right into Bruce’s life scarring event.  I don’t think I’m out of line saying that Bruce is suffering from PTSD, and the combination of the writing and Mazouz’s performance really bring out the more subtle accents of the disorder.  Bruce is seen suffering from nightmare, obsessing over various topics, self-destructive activities, and a lot of unfocused aggression.

It’s made clear that Bruce is seeking something to fill the void left by his parents’ murder.  He becomes an amateur detective in an attempt to find meaning behind their deaths, thus holding on to the last shreds of his parents.  He also looks to Alfred as a father figure, but at the same time maintains their traditional employer/employee relationship, so no matter how close they grow, there will forever be a distance.  Basically Bruce could really use some counseling…

Unfortunately as we find out in the season finale, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has limited crisis counseling experience.  Otherwise she could have, and probably should have, filled her comic book counterpart’s role as counselor to the young Bruce Wayne.  Instead she starts out as a staff physician at the newly re-opened Arkham Asylum, and later takes over as the medical examiner and Jim Gordon’s love interest.  When she first appeared in Arkham, I was hopeful because Morena Baccarin has a very soothing on screen appearance and could easily portray a counselor.  I honestly thought that was the role she was going to fill.  Baccarin does a wonderful job in the role anyway, but I think the character could have been taken a different direction.  Yet it’s entirely possible that Tompkins will take on the crisis counselor role later after experiencing the trauma of facing off with a crazed Barbra Kean.

Comics are, in general a twisted knot of ret-cons, with multiple writers trying to put their own mark on the history of iconic characters.  No set of characters suffer more from this than Jim Gordon’s immediate family.  It is a mess and I’m not even going to try to compare the comic version to what we see in Jim Gordon in Gotham.  That said Barbara Kean was Gordon’s first girlfriend in the series before she left after Gordon had run afoul of Police Commissioner Loeb.  When she returned after his reinstatement, he had already moved on to Leslie Tompkins and Barbara sent herself on a self-destructive spiral that culminated in her encountering the serial killer known as “The Ogre”, her murdering her parents on his orders and eventually trying to kill Tompkins, only to be stopped by her ex-boyfriend.  Everything I just said there, that’s simple compared to the comic book counterpart.  Erin Richards plays the role well enough, I never really liked the character, but I don’t think we were ever meant to like her.  Richards plays the transition from emotionally wounded socialite to full on psychopath with a great deal of believability, and I look forward to what direction they take the character post-psychotic break.

Edward Nygma is the next character that is worth talking about because he himself as a very interesting transition.  Nygma is set up as the GCPD’s forensic expert who likes riddles.  He really likes riddles.  He likes them so much he tries to bring his information to the officers investigating the case in the form of a riddle, much to their annoyance.  His relationship to Gordon is interesting because he seems to almost admire Gordon.  Gordon was, apparently, the first detective he’s worked with to rattle off the answer to a riddle right away.  Played by Cory Michael Smith, he’s shown to have more than a few sociopathic personality traits, tries unsuccessfully to woo the affections of records specialist Kristin Kringle, and later murders and brutally disposes of the body of her lover.  His first foray into his comic book counterpart’s psychosis is when he forges a letter from the deceased boyfriend, but arranges the sentences so that the first letter of each line spells out “NYGMA”.  He has a psychotic break later, berating himself for leaving an obvious clue.  It’s hard to gauge where this character will go next.  My guess is that he’ll continue to work with the police, only to watch as they try to decipher the clues from the crimes he commits.  This actually plays well into the character from the comics as he always held himself intellectually superior to those around him and it seems logical he would place himself in a location where he can watch people run themselves ragged trying to decipher his clues.

However there are wasted and unnecessary characters as well.  Part of the problem with most American television programs are filler episodes.  These are episodes that provide no information towards the overall arc of the season, only put there to fill an episode quota and provide a “villain of the week”.  Smallville was notorious for this, but I’ll get to them later.

Gotham doesn’t necessarily have any “filler episodes” per say.  Everything is designed to reveal or, sometimes, force feed us characterization, letting us get into the mind of the characters.  If the A-plot doesn’t cover something significant for the overall story, then the B-plot usually adds something, usually by establishing relationship ties.

Ivy Pepper, our proto Poison Ivy for the show, is a unnecessary character.  They literally could have written her out of the entire show at this point and not missed anything.  Midway through the series they introduce a character named Jerome, who again, has no business in the show other than to tease us with a possible Joker origin.  I’ve read that there will be more Joker build ups later, but that’s to come.

Finally under the tent of unnecessary is Attorney Harvey Dent.  He’s set up as a young, up and coming lawyer, with possible dissociative identity disorder, show when he rages at a suspect, and then is promptly dropped.  He’s depicted as a contemporary of Jim Gordon, which is sometimes comic book accurate.  What isn’t comic book accurate is how Dent later becomes Two-Face in the comics, in which his face is scarred by acid thrown by gangster Sal Maroni…

Which brings me to wasted characters, the top of which is Sal Maroni, who is played by David Zayas.  Zayas’ had a spot on portrayal of this rough and uncouth mobster, reminding me of DeNiero as Al Capone from The Untouchables.  If you took Carmine Falcone (John Doman) to be Don Vito Corleone, ala The Godfather, then the pairing of these two legendary mobsters was a fantastic example of two-sides of the same coin.  Which was ruined by Fish Mooney.  Not to knock Jada Pinket-Smith’s portrayal, she actually reminded me of Eartha Kit from time to time, but the inclusion of Fish Mooney was just not necessary, at least not in the capacity in which she was shown.  They could have set her up as a rival crime lord, not an Falcone lieutenant with high aspirations, and they could have focused on her conflict with them more than the Dollmaker plot thread.  That felt forced and actually plugged in some sub-par computer generated effects, which we could have been sparred if they had gone a different direction.

Finally, there is the Penguin, played by Robin Lord Taylor.  I really don’t know what to say about him.  I can’t give him too much praise as I feel he did what was expected of him, and I can’t knock him because he did his job well.  He made you watch him every time he was on screen, but I didn’t love the character.  He was dangerous, but that danger wasn’t out of left field, you always knew it was there.  I think, he’s kind of an anti-Gordon.  His arc is predictable, but well portrayed. 

I suppose I should talk about Selina Kyle, played by Camren Bicondova.  Again, she did a good job, but she didn’t have the same caliber of material Mazouz did.  She wasn’t anything we haven’t already seen before, but that’s not the actress’s fault.  People have been doing their spin on the orphan thief with questionable ethics for generations, so the odds were against her.  She had a good, if subdued screen presence, with a dangerous-bad girl vibe.  She ended the season showing Selina had a violent streak in her, so it might be interesting to see where they take it from there.

Overall, it’s a pretty good prequel series, easily in my top 10, but maybe not directly in my top 5.  Give it a watch and see for yourself.

Spoilers Aren't Always a Good Thing

 

Picture from http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/star-wars-force-awakens-photos

 

I’m trying but I can’t help it.  When I see this picture I keep hearing Chester Bennington from Linkin Park screaming “Crawling in my skinnnnnn!!!” 

This is one of the villains, Kylo Ren, from “Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens”, played by Adam Driver.  This is a prime example of why we shouldn’t see things before they make it to screen.  Out of context with the rest of the movie, this figure doesn’t seem as much intimidating as he does “emo”.

Maybe it will make sense in the movie.

Taco Bell Biscuit Breakfast Taco...

So today is Cinco de Mayo, or the 5th of May to anyone living above Denton County, Texas, and to celebrate Taco Bell was offering free breakfast tacos this morning.

Our local Taco Bell had been pushing its new breakfast brand for a little while now, and I'm sure you've seen at least one of these commercials about the "Breakfast Revolution" on some form of media.  Well, since it was free, I gave it a shot.

Before I get into my personal opinion of this food item, let me address our local background.  We are roughly two and a half hours away, driving, from Mexico.  This is deep South Texas folks, and by that standard, we have our own opinion of what good "Mexican food" is, and Taco Bell is not what leaps to mind when we think "good Mexican food."  Frankly, its not what leaps to mind when we think "Mexican food" at all.  Taco Bell is more of circumstance than it is an eatery down here.  Because they are partnered with Pizza Hut and KFC, they have survived in areas where there really isn't a need.  There's no real demand for it down here, they just exist.

When they announced their new breakfast brand, many people I know rolled our collective eyes because they called it the "Breakfast Revolution", claiming that it would break the strangle hold the burger joints like McDonalds and Burger King, and in our area Whataburger had on the breakfast market.  We rolled out eyes because Taco Bell wasn't filling a void down here.  With our abundance of Mexican restaurants, we have other breakfast options.  If we want a taco for breakfast, we can get a good, quality breakfast taco at five different locations between our homes and work.  An Exxon station less than 100 yards away from our Taco Bell serves better tacos.

But, it was free so I wanted to give it a shot.  The problem was, I drove by the Taco Bell at 6:10am and they were closed.  Everyone else that offers breakfast down here is open no later than 5:00am to serve the early morning commuters.  We have emergency services, type A personality business leaders, and refinery workers on their way to their jobs that need to eat something in route.  Taco Bell was not catering to them.  I understand that they are open late, but if you are going to compete with the other eateries down here, you need to compete on their level.

My wife was kind enough to swing one of these free tacos by me after she dropped or oldest off at school so finally I got to taste this new breakfast creation.

Sometime soon, I want you to go to your local grocery store or Wal-Mart and pick up a Jimmy Dean, or if you are at Wal-Mart, a Great Value bacon breakfast bowl.  Throw that in a microwave.  While that's cooking, take a tin of biscuits, pull one out and flatten it out, then bake it.  Then put a small amount of the breakfast bowl into the biscuit and fold the biscuit in half, then sprinkle shredded cheese on it.  You have just re-created the Taco Bell breakfast experience, only you've added potato.  That's it.  Finely ground bacon, obscure yellow cheese, and reconstituted egg.  All they did was exactly what everyone else does, only they folded the biscuit in half and had reconstituted egg rather than fresh eggs.

And they charge nearly $5.00 for it.  That's just the taco itself, not including coffee.  For $5.00 you could get two tacos and a small coffee at that gas station I mentioned earlier.  They would be superior tacos and...coffee.

The taco didn't fill me up so much as it thudded into the base of my stomach.  I swear I can still feel it in there, like its trying to reform after being chewed up or something! 

Taco Bell; Breakfast isn't for everyone.  Places like Dairy Queen and KFC and Popeye's don't serve breakfast and that's okay.  They still play in a very competitive market and do just fine.  Not every Revolution is meant to be won, just ask the French.

And stop making breakfast.  Leave that to the people who wake up early.

Suspension of Disbelief

Sometimes I feel the need to justify why I talk about certain topics.  Well, today is another day.  You may have noticed that I've spoken frequently about a lot of television and movies, but not so much about the average novel.  That's because I'm addressing popular, mass consumed media.  People, I'm noticing, don't have much time for books anymore.  This is depressing, mainly because one day I hope to publish a novel of my own, but I also completely understand why.  After becoming a parent I found myself with precious little time to read anything that didn't have hard-cardboard pages or wasn't a book made entirely out of fabric.  I sincerely don't think anyone wants me giving a critique on "Hop on Pop" any time soon.  If you do, you may want to re-evaluate your priorities.

As it is, the times when I do have an opportunity to read, well, anything, is when I am out of town for a work trip, which admittedly isn't that often.  So, I watch a lot more than I read, and I've watched a lot.  A lot of television, a lot of web reviews, a lot of short comedy videos and a lot of major studio movies.

In doing so, I've also nitpicked a lot of little issues.  I've watched procedural cop shows like "Blue Bloods", "CSI", and "Castle".  Working in law enforcement I've openly balked at how little procedure is followed in procedural cop shows.  Either they've gotten so out of the realm of possibility with their forensic science that it might as well be science fiction, or their procedures are so poorly adhered to that they should have a conviction rate of approximately 0%.  These issues, however, can fall under the category "creative license", or as I've come to understand it "rushed research".

Three factors plague the cop show.  1) Studio expectations:  The studio needs the production company to bang out a product in as short as time possible.  That said, writers can't spend a lot of their time looking up laws and studying criminal justice text books to get every aspect right.  "Law and Order" has had to take short cuts and they are considered the high mark of the procedural show.  "CSI" in it's various incarnations has to talk about forensic science, but the writers aren't forensic scientists themselves.  They are paid writers and as such have to focus on telling a good story without bogging the audience down in the science.  Which leads to the next problem:

2) Assumed education level of the audience: The writers can't know if the person watching their show at home has an associates in criminal law, heck most people working the rank and file of civilian jobs in law enforcement don't have an associates in criminal law.  They need to write to the lowest common denominator, and so throw in some techno jargon, flash some stuff over a computer screen, call it science and move on with their story.  The science is a tool within the story, but not the story itself.  They can't let the science or the procedure out shine the story and tone of the work.  This brings us to:

3) The tone of the piece:  I don't think anyone looking is looking to "Castle" for hard hitting crime drama, that's not the tone of the show.  The show is lighter, happier, and more hopeful than say "Law and Order".  Actions don't necessarily have consequences that carry over into the next episode.  Much like Kenny from the early days of "South Park", next episode we will be back to status quo.  In that regards, the show feels more like a cartoon than anything else.  The line "We'll send it to tech for clean up..." sounds a lot more fun than "That's the best resolution we can get because of the pixel ratio and the software that powers the camera itself."

Having reality interrupt your escapist fiction is jarring, especially if it doesn't fit in the tone of the piece.  You watch the news or documentaries for reality, everything else is to escape from that reality, with varying levels of departure.

Its no secret, I love Superman.  My sister professes that I've loved the character since before I was born, which is entirely possible I guess.  Some years ago, around the time "Superman Returns" came around, the History Channel presented a piece called "The Science of Superman".  I watched it, and I kept coming back around to one simple response to every complaint they had about Superman's impossible powers..."Its not suppose to be real.  Its a comic book."  They were trying to invade Superman's world with reality, and there's really no place for it.  It doesn't fit, and no amount of hammering will make it fit.

However, as I said earlier, there are various levels of departure from reality.  A good measuring stick for this would be the Batman film franchise.  In Tim Burton's "Batman" from 1989, it clearly took place in it's own world, like it was lifted from the pages of a 1940's comic book.  Stepping into that world, you could believe everything they told you, because nothing stood out as weird.  As the movies progressed, the world got weirder and weirder, and regardless of how you actually felt about the movies themselves, you can honestly say that each Batman belonged in that world.  Then you move to Christopher Nolan's Batman.

Nolan and his team sought to ground Batman in something resembling reality.  The world was gritty, but not overly so.  There was both hope and hopelessness and our hero stumbled and fell along his journey as we all do.  Yet nothing about Batman himself stood out in "Batman Begins".  He fit into his reality, and we weren't prone to question it since that reality felt a lot like our own.  "The Dark Knight" came around and, again, it felt close enough to our world that we didn't waste any part of the movie questioning it.  But "The Dark Knight Rises" had the dubious task of upping the ante and bringing the overall story full circle.  The problem is that reality doesn't up the ante, so much as it just pushes on and we react accordingly.  The world of Nolan's Batman felt so close to ours that our suspension of disbelief wasn't really being used, so when Batman travels halfway around the world into a no-mans land without any conceivable means of conveyance, and accomplished this journey in what seems like a day, we are suddenly jarred.  Then he seemingly survives a nuclear blast.  Suddenly we have to suspend a lot of disbelief, the distance between our world and the fantasy world has grown to huge lengths with no time to adjust.

That's like having a transformer show up in a Tyler Perry movie.  It has no place and our brains aren't ready for it.

The only thing I can think of that Nolan and his team could have used as a bench mark to justify this is a line from an interview with Stephen Speilberg when he was talking about "Jaws".  Spoiler alert if you haven't seen this classic.  At the climax of the film, the main character shoots an air tank lodged in the shark's mouth and it explodes half the shark.  Speilberg knew this wasn't accurate, and his team knew it.  When they talked to him about it he addressed the suspension of disbelief as such "If I've had them for this long, at this point in the movie, they'll believe anything I tell them."

This, isn't wrong.  But if that was the bench mark, then Nolan and company forgot that prior to the shark blowing up, we were treated to other physical improbabilities, like a giant great white shark, said shark being strong enough to drag barrels below the surface, its ability to pull a very large boat, and destroy a bigger boat with it's shear bodily force.  Physics took a back seat to story and that's fine, because it all fit together.  We didn't have to suddenly suspend our disbelief for the air tank because it was already suspended for the rest of the movie.

The Nolan-Batman films, however threw us super-speed Batman who can walk on water while sauntering away from a nuclear explosion without giving us anything to build on.  Yeah, its a billionaire who dresses as a bat, but they worked so hard to make it make sense.  They put it all in context and then threw it out the window.

Now, when I say I don't read a lot, it doesn't mean "I don't read."  I do.  I'm currently reading a book by my best friend, "Under the Undead Moon" by William Dilbeck.  As you may have guessed, I can be very critical, especially when I believe people could do better.  That said, there is some police procedure that my friend gets wrong, but I honestly let it slide, because its a supernatural horror story.  I can't really nit pick that someone's Miranda warning wasn't read when they were fighting zombies a few pages earlier.  Actually I could, but I won't because it doesn't violate the tone of the book.  It wouldn't be fair because when you put it into context, its not wrong.

We can be hyper critical, but if there has been one thing I have learned from my kids, its that you will never enjoy a story if you spend all your time standing outside it picking at it.

At the same time, a suspension of disbelief, or as I said in "Batman Begins" a lack there of, can sometimes hinder further story ideas.

Some time ago, I was discussing with a college about the idea of a "Justice League" story, ala Marvel "The Avengers" film franchise, where they could tie it into the Christopher Nolan Batman films.  Looking at it now, I can say it would not have worked.  You could not have connected "Superman Returns" to "Batman Begins" to "Green Lantern", because all three worlds felt so different in the films.  Regardless of what you say about Marvel's franchise, they balance out comic book silly with epic film making.  "Superman Returns" could have connected to "Green Lantern", but they could not link up with the final installment of the Batman trilogy because of one character, Bane.

Bane, in the comics, is a super villain who takes a super steroid called "Venom" to grow massive and become super strong.  In the film "The Dark Knight Rises", he's a man in exceptional shape who's body is so wracked with injuries he needs a mask constantly pumping anesthetic into his system to stave off crippling agony.  His presence in the franchise serves as a blockade of disbelief.  If you have a universe where Superman and Green Lantern exist, then why can't Bane use his venom drug?

Now, for me at least, all of these movies work on their own.  I can enjoy "Superman Returns" and "The Dark Knight Rises" equally, but that's because their set up requires a unique suspension of disbelief, I don't have to ask a bunch of questions to make it make sense.  Put them together, and you open a lot of plot holes.  The reason you spot plot holes after repeated viewings sis because you are initially immersed in that world.  Its not until  your second or third time in that "pool" that you start to notice it.

That's why I'm actually grateful for the new stories coming out with "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman" (though the latter sounds like a court case) leading into their Justice League story...they are establishing a new world where possibilities are open for story telling.  Will I nit pick?  Probably, but at least I will do it later rather than during the films.

Remember, when it comes to your escapist fiction: Go big, or go home.

Later.

Whatever Happened to the Second Marty?

More often than not, we treat the Back to the Future Film franchise as a charming little adventure tale centered on a young man and his fantastic time traveling Delorean.  However, if we peel back the exterior storyline and look into the implications of the details, we find that Martin McFly, our protagonist, isn’t so much traveling through time as he is traveling to alternate dimensions.  Essentially, he is driving through the multiverse.

In the first film, Back to the Future, Marty witnesses the death of his mentor figure Doc Brown and accidentally flees into the past by thirty years, where he encounters his parents as they were as teenagers.  There his actions make significant changes to the way they came together as a couple and how they interact within their own social structures.  For the most part, he leaves them better than they were before.  As Marty is going “home”, he tweaks the controls to the time machine and arrives roughly a minute before he left.  There he actually witnesses the gunning down of Doc Brown and himself fleeing in the time machine.  After the assailants clear the scene he approaches his friend only to find he did not die, but rather used information Marty had left in the past to prepare for the attack by way of body armor.

This is our jumping in point for analysis, because we establish in the next sequence of scenes that the 1985 Marty arrived in is a different setting than what he left.  This is made immediately clear from his arrival at the parking lot because, when he started his journey it was called “Twin Pines Mall.”  In our newly established reality, it is now “Lone Pine Mall”.  This is actually a very important detail because it shows us he is not returning to the same reality he left.  In this new reality, Doc Brown has lived the last thirty years with the knowledge that 1) he will build a functioning time machine, 2) most of his other inventions will fail, 3) Some terrorist will try to kill him.  Already Marty’s presence has altered the course of history in a dramatic way.

Marty, being separated from the events that occurred in between this newly established 1955, where in he influenced his parents, and this new 1985, where his parents are now successful, has no recollection of his life from this newly established timeline.  An argument could be made that since he is a time traveler, his experiences are locked his memory so that it could not be influenced by the new time line, which is a very common time travel story trope.  However, there is another aspect we do need to take into account; somewhere out in time and/or space, is a Marty McFly who considers the “new” 1985 as the long established reality.  Where did he go?

Established wisdom when it comes to paradoxes indicates that the Marty McFly of this timeline, for the simplicity we will refer to him as Marty-2, went back to 1955.  However, he didn’t, at least not the 1955 we witnessed.  The 1955 we witnessed involved the first Marty, as he is the protagonist and thus focal point of the story.  We never discover what happened to Marty-2.  However, there is a different possibility.  Marty-2 went to Marty’s original 1955.

            Consider for a moment that a timeline is fixed, in that all the decisions made in a single universe could not have gone any other way.  This is where we get the concept of the Multiverse.  Let us say, for instance, that you go to a restaurant and order a steak rather than the chicken, you have made a choice that could not have gone any other way within the context of your universe.  However, in an alternate universe, an alternate you chose the chicken.  Likewise, that decision is fixed within the context of that universe.  In another established universe you ordered the fish and that decision is fixed as well.

We should also take into account the prevailing theory that energy and matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only altered.  That means that, at the point of the creation of the universe, all matter and energy was created and since that point, all that has happened is a redistribution of that energy and matter, altering its form and function over billions and billions of years until it reaches it’s current state, only to continue to be altered.  Never added, never subtracted only altered.  With that concept in mind, we can view the universe as like a Jenga tower that is one move away from toppling, pieces are redistributed and never actually “removed”. When Marty McFly and his Delorean travel out of one universe, that matter and energy must be replaced by an equal amount of matter and energy in order for the transfer to work properly.  When Marty-2 vacates 1985-2 at the end of the first film, Marty, our Marty, replaces him.

It could be argued that since there is an overlap, where in Marty sees Marty-2 leaving that this theory collapses at that point.  If we talk to Einstein, we discover that space/time itself is malleable.  The universe is actually constantly in flux, like the surface of a pond.  There is no such thing as a perfectly still pond, and space is never perfectly still in of itself.  When Marty punches his hole into 1985-2, there is still a residual ripple effect in place, which allows Marty-2 to flee 1985-2 without causing a universe destabilizing overload of energy and matter. 

            So what became of Marty-2?  My theory is simple enough, whenever Marty, vanishes into time and space, Marty-2, or ostensibly mass and energy of equal value, enter to replace him.  I propose that when Marty disappeared into 1955-2, Marty-2 entered the original 1985 from the original 1955 where he witnessed the untimely death of Doc Brown.  So what happened to Marty-2 in 1955?  He kept a low profile and did not influence the events involving his parents.  Since he did not, they did not grow into the strong, forthright people he grew up to know, and when he arrived in 1985, he found himself in a world where his family is significantly less prominent than he left.  Without a Doc Brown to assist him with the time machine, he went on with his lack luster life until he grew up and had a family of his own.

In the second film, Marty travels to the future, 2015, where he views his older self.  I believe this is literally Marty (original) traveling to 2015 (original) rather than 2015-2.  What he is seeing is Marty-2 living in the original 1985 universe.  This is why the “future” Marty sees himself as though he had never had any adventures in time travel.  Gone is that adventurer’s spirit, and left is a man broken by the world.

Our Marty then travels back to another 1985, 1985-3.  We know virtually nothing about this universe’s Marty, only that “Marty-3” is away at boarding school.  It could be that this universe’s Marty followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and discovered another time machine that transported him on his own adventures, thus creating the appropriate matter-energy displacement to allow our Marty to enter this universe.  This universe was created when the Biff Tannen of 2015 stole the Delorean and used it to travel to a younger version of him, Biff Tannen of 1955-2, and offer him a book that would allow him to be financially successful as an adult.  Given how 1985-3 turned out, it can be speculated that another Biff Tannen, from an alternate universe gave Biff Tannen-3 the same book in 1955-3.  Biff Tannen of 2015’s attempt, however, proves unsuccessful as he inadvertently travels to 1955-2, and is followed by our Marty, who witnesses events from his first adventure to this alternate past.

Since the film is very much centered on our Marty McFly, we do not get to see what his alternate versions are up to, but we can extrapolate from our initial theory that each universe in this little neighborhood of the multiverse has it’s own version of these characters and a Delorean which allows them to traverse between the various dimensions, like needles stitching pieces of cloth together, rarely intersecting, but always passing each other in time and space. 

            Obviously the theory does not state that at no point do the characters travel through time.  They clearly do, traversing from one version of the time stream to another; however they are at the same time crossing dimensions and experiencing the results of different combinations of events.  Remember that each universe has its own unique timeline which ultimately cannot be corrupted because those events are fixed.  When we see pictures and faxes alter or fade, indicating they are creating a paradox, what we are actually looking at is the time/space field finishing its ripple effect.  Remember how we talked about the ripple, that ripple has to express itself in some manner.

            I could go on into the third film, where in the majority of the adventure takes place in 1885, however if you take the theory presented, you can see how it applies and fits together.  Doc Brown travels back in time and sends a message to Marty in 1955-2.  We cannot conclude that this is the Doc Brown of 1955-2, since it is plausible this Doc Brown is from a similar but different timeline.  Likewise, we cannot conclude that Marty traveled to 1885-2 in his attempt to save his friend (yet again), because Marty is presented with hard evidence in 1955-2 that, at least, a version of his friend died in 1955-2.  When Marty jumps in the Delorean to rescue Doc Brown, whatever 1885 he finds himself in; it cannot be connected to 1955-2 because of the evidence presented to him in 1955-2 of Doc Brown’s death.  This evidence is muted in the context of whatever 1885 they are in, we could possibly assume it is 1885-3, because of the ripple effect of time/space travel rendering documents taken out of context from their own timeline incapable of supporting the information they contain. 

Further, there is evidence within the films themselves that support my theory;

1)      In the second film, Marty encounters a version of his older self that, in his youth, suffered a bad car accident that somehow crushed his spirit.  This is clearly not the Marty who, in fact, traveled to 2015 to view his older self, otherwise he would have made some sort of acknowledgement of young Marty’s presence.  It is far more likely that this was Marty of 1985-2 who was stranded in 1985, and suffered a car accident while acclimating himself to his new world, and thus had no further adventures.

In fact, for a man who has traveled in time and space, he seems to forget that ever happened.  I can accept forgetting some of the smaller adventures of youth, but you would think he would possess some recollection of seeing himself when he was younger.

2)      Later in the second film, Doc Brown directly states the existence of alternate timelines, but rather than creating them (as he states in the picture), they are in fact tripping over them in their travels.

 The multiversal theory does not negate the title or premise of the film; rather it adds an extra dimension to the concept.  Rather than limiting the travel to just one timeline, our characters are branching out, breaking the bounds of our very reality and venturing into others.  That and, “Back to as Close as we can get to our Universe” doesn’t hold as well as a title.

            So what exactly is the multiverse?  Put in its basic context, there are several universes that run concurrent with each other, each existing separate from the others but bearing enough similarities that crossing from one to the other would place the traveler in a time of simultaneous familiarity and disorientation.  The theory of what it is does not, however, explain how they came to pass, just as the theory of the Big Bang explains an origin point for the universe, but does not explain how that origin came into being in the first place.

Remember the analogy of several layers of fabric and the needles.  I want to go back to that because I think that expresses the multiverse extremely well.  These bolts of fabric are each unique, but similar; each a different color, but woven the same way.  Our needles are the characters and their time machines weaving in and out of the realities.  They make small holes in reality which close around them due to the energy exchange happening. 

The notion that they are traveling in between universes also allots a little more credibility to them traveling in time as well.  If you found a way to exit one universe, as you are making your approach into the other, conceivably looking at the universe from the outside, you could pick and choose where along the time stream to land.  It could be said that they seem to travel rather clumsily through time, rather than picking and choosing where on the time stream to land.  In at least two incidents, the first venture to 1955-2 and the landing in 1885 were portrayed as strictly accidental.  However, since their presence there was required for that specific universe’s events to unfold the way they did, it could be argued that it was inevitable for them to fall out of their universe into another.

However you view the story, be it strictly time travel or complex multiuniversal travel, the possibilities laid out in the series are ground breaking theoretical physics and I believe could only serve to expand our way of viewing reality around us.

The Importance of Pet Research!

Recently a friend of our family suffered the loss of a pet, at no fault of their own.  They were inexperienced pet owners and ventured outside the conventions of either a dog or a cat, and went with a rabbit.

Some animals are relatively easy to take care of, they pretty much take care of themselves.  That's because of thousands of years of controlled, calculated breeding on the part of humans.  These animals have engineered themselves to adapt to being domesticated or being wild.  That's why cats and dogs are so common, they have a history with humans that extends further back than recorded history.  They are the default pets, they require maintenance but for the most part, they are pretty easy.

Rabbits, while domesticated, aren't necessarily bred as "pets".  What sets a rabbit apart from a cat or a dog is one basic element: their intended purpose.  Cats and dogs are designed to be predators.  That's why they work so well with us, they keep vermin, pests, and otherwise destructive critters away from our crops.  Rabbits are one of those destructive critters, they are prey animals.  They aren't terribly hardy creatures, because they weren't designed to stay around that long; long enough to become a meal for a meat eater basically.

Rabbit breeders are a different sort.  Some breed the animals to be domestic pets, because rabbits are cute and we like cute things, but they don't have a terribly long life span and can become victims to disease if you are not careful.  Some breed them for food, either for larger animals or for man's consumption.  Go to your local grocer and, depending on your area, you will find rabbit.  Most meat markets will special order rabbit for you if they don't carry it in stock.  Not the same for cats and dogs.

Then there are those breeders who have no idea what they are doing.  For one reason or another they have started a small colony of rabbits and need to off load them.  These rabbits, the ones that are not carefully bred, can be bought for cheap because their breeding hasn't been carefully controlled.  They have likely mated within their own family and have genetic defects that shorten their lifespan significantly. 

Further, if you, the pet purchaser, don't get the rabbit right after its been weaned from it's mother, you don't have much of an idea of how old the animal actually is.  You may be getting a four year old rabbit that has a lifespan of five years.

Beyond that, you have to be willing to spend to keep the little bunny alive.  You need a cage, a bed, a feed bowl, water bottle, bedding, a chunk of wood for them to chew on, the list really goes on.  You get a dog, and you can keep him happy with a couple of cold hot dogs when you run out of food.

What it boils down to is, if you want a pet, make a plan, figure out what kind of animal suits your household best, be it fish, bird, cat, dog, or rabbit.  Then determine that animal's needs.  You can't wing it, and you shouldn't: that's dangerous to the animal and to your home.

Please, please do your research.  Go on line, ask your local veterinarian, ask the professionals at your local pet store (Pet-co and Pet-Smart are good), but for the safety of that animal and the safety of your home, just take the time and research.