The Boxing Glove Arrow: The Most Absurd Killing Machine Ever Devised

 

 

There’s a generally accepted rule in superhero books where in the titular hero does his or her level best not to kill their chief antagonists or the armies of thugs sent against them.  It’s a very loose rule, more of a suggestion most of the time, however it exists.  It’s from this rule that the Green Arrow developed a quiver full of trick arrows, most famously-the BOXING GLOVE ARROW (BGA).

Not since the batarang has there been a more captivating projectile spawned from the pages of DC Comics with countless attempts to develop it in real life, with myself being one of those budding entrepreneurs.  Seriously I have plans, and if I can ever find a viable market for functioning trick arrows, I may just be a millionaire.  Or not.

 

Anyway, the question today isn’t “can a boxing glove arrow be developed”, but rather “would it be functional.”  When CW’s “The Arrow” series aired, it seemed pretty cut and dry, but then in Season 3, the episode “Guilty” featured the boxing glove arrow in probably the most practical way possible.  Take a look:

                                         

Let’s break this scene down and take a look at the factors.

 

1)      The Distance: Oliver stands maybe ten to fifteen feet away from Ted when he fires at him.  Most bows commercially available have a range that can be measured in double digit yards.  For instance, the bow I use has a range of about forty yards before physics turns against me.  Oliver uses the close distance to his advantage.

 

2)      The Bow: Take a close look at the bow.  Oliver draws the string back to its maximum, and for that kind of bow, that would make it an effective killing machine past my own 40 yard limitation.  A more skilled and experienced archer than I would make that weapon effective probably up to 80-100 yards.

 

3)      The Target: Ted Grant is an experienced fighter and has conditioned his body, either directly or indirectly, to take a severe beating.  He’s struck in the forehead area and knocked on his back, but why? 

 

4)      The Projectile: This is where the first three factors come together to make it work.  An arrow is a very balanced instrument.  As the bow arms snap forward, it imparts energy through the string, into the arrow causing it to launch forward.  The arrow needs to be balanced and aerodynamic in order to fly in a straight direction and inflict the maximum amount of damage possible on the intended target.  But look at how the BGA dips in flight, striking Ted with the knuckles of the glove rather than straight on with the “fingers”.  Well, this is good because the padding in that glove is insufficient to stop a hunting tipped arrow if the flight pattern goes uninterrupted.  Energy is lost as the arrow begins to tumble; where in the weight of the front causes it to flip in air.  The arrow has a boxing glove attached to it, it’s going to tumble, that’s inevitable, but Oliver uses the close proximity to his advantage.  He’s far enough away that the arrow will start to tumble thus preventing the arrowhead from tearing through the glove and into Ted’s face.  He’s close enough that the tumbling effect is reduced and more energy is put behind the glove causing the effect he desires…to punch someone from far away.

A similar effect can be achieved by putting a tennis ball on the end of a commercially purchased arrow.  The arrow will tumble, but if you are close enough you will still hit your target.  But is it safe?

Hell no.  Let me elaborate.  You have a significant amount of energy put into a relatively small space, namely the arrowhead.  If you drop a target practice arrow, which is typically blunt, on your foot point down, it won’t penetrate.  It doesn’t have enough force.  However, knock that arrow out of a bow, and it’s going to punch through your foot.  The force imparted on the arrow creates heavier pounds per square inch.

Let’s put that into perspective: Look at how a hammer affects a nail.  If you take a hammer and slam it down onto a board, you’re going to dent the board in an impact area similar to the head of said hammer.  However, if you set up a nail and strike the head of the nail with the hammer, the force is imparted from the hammer to the nail, driving it through the board because that nail has a much narrower surface area.  The same principle applies to the BGA, but in reverse.

The force of Oliver’s arrow is distributed through a greater surface area, the glove.  However if that bow has enough strength to launch an arrow 80-100 yards with lethal velocity, distributing it across the surface of the glove won’t be sufficient to negate the deadly effect.  At speed, that glove is traveling at roughly 2.5 times the fastest boxing punch recorded at 44 miles per hour (delivered by Keith Liddell circa 2014) and boxing punches as slower speeds than even that have killed people.

Now obviously in the shot above, we’re talking special effects and professional stuntmen to ensure no one is actually harmed, because they all understand that punching someone in the face with a fist moving at 110 miles per hour is a bad idea.

So what does that mean for the future of non-lethal bow fired ordinances?  Well for starters there really is no such thing as “non-lethal”.  Despite how sturdy humans are, if it inflicts damage in anyway, it carries the ability to kill you.  Pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, bean bag shot, air powered projectiles (BB’s), even propelled water has the ability, under the right circumstances, to end a life.  Further, with all the afore mentioned methods, there’s not much of a market outside of novelty and entertainment for trick arrows as it is.  I’ve worked in law enforcement for about 15 years now and not once have I ever heard an officer say “Man, I just wish I had a compound bow instead of this semi-automatic.”

But in the long run, that’s okay.  The BGA is an awesome tool that always gets a cheer when it’s deployed by everyone’s favorite emerald archer because it’s just so absurd and now you know why it’s always effective.

Thanks for reading.

Legal Advice: The Crimes of The Batman, The Superman, and Lt. James Gordon

There seems to be a skewed image in DC fandom concerning the events of Batman Begins vs. The Man of Steel.  The battle cry is that Batman doesn’t kill, and that Superman could have found a way to stop Zod without killing him.

Let’s take this to the courts:

The charge is homicide, and the definition goeth thusly:

Second degree murder usually applies to cases in which the killing may have been intentional but was not premeditated. These are often referred to as “crimes of passion.” A common example is the jealous husband that flies into a homicidal rage and kills his wife and her lover when he finds them in bed together.

“Some states also consider grossly wanton and reckless behavior that results in the death of another to be second degree murder. This applies in situations where one's actions were so wanton and reckless that the death of another person was almost assured, even if the killing was not intentional.

Second degree murder is also very serious, and in most situations the defendant could face decades to life in prison, though the death sentence is not a possibility in these cases.” (http://www.hg.org/murder.html) 

Does this sound familiar?  In Batman Begins, Ra’s Al Ghul has commandeered a commuter train and is intending to evaporate the city’s water supply and thus spread a fear toxin through the air causing mass panic and death.   Batman’s response to this is to destroy the train before reaching “the central hub”.  He has Lt. James Gordon destroy the supports to the tracks and Batman splits the train in half sending Ra’s Al Ghul and the train plummeting into a parking garage where it explodes, taking the “microwave emitter” with it.

During this event, Batman escapes, leaving Ra’s in the runaway train, stating “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you either.”  This is not a morally ambiguous line.  This is a lie Batman has just told himself.  According to the above accepted definition of Second Degree homicide, Batman killed Ra’s Al Ghul.  His actions meet the elements of the crime as defined by Frank Schmallenger’s Criminal Justice Today: 1.  An unlawful killing (Batman has no legal authority to take a human life), 2. Of a human being (Ra’s according to the film was human), 3.  Intent (Batman intended to have Ra’s die in a crash), and 4. With Planning (Batman always has a plan).

Now the question to respond with is “Did Batman have a choice?”  As a matter of fact, he did.  It’s never established that the emergency brake could not be engaged.  It’s never established that the microwave emitter couldn’t be disabled, and despite popular belief, it would be possible to put Ra’s Al Ghul in prison for his crimes.  Even if you consider the “corrupt nature” of Gotham’s police force, they would still take a very dim view of a man trying to annihilate their entire city.  After all, the city he was trying to destroy happens to be the city those “corrupt” officials happen to live in.

Not only did Batman commit Second Degree Murder, he also destroyed any evidence that would corroborate the accusation that the League of Shadows existed or was trying to poison Gotham.  By taking matters into his own hands he actually caused more harm than good.  Further, Lt. Gordon should have been stripped of his office and put into Federal custody for his criminal actions in detonating a high explosive in a urban area causing millions of dollars of damage.

To add to the list of offenses, Batman also committed attempted manslaughter earlier in the film when questioning Dr. Jonathan Crane.  During his assault on Arkham, Batman forcefully exposed Crane to his own fear toxin, the same toxin that threatened to kill the assistant district attorney.  Once Batman realized that the dosage was potentially fatal (never mind that he had already experienced the chemical compound first hand and understood its dangerous, even life threatening effects) he made no attempt to notify medical or legal authorities to have them administer aide to the now poisoned Dr. Crane.  Rather he left him in the Arkham basement to die, driving away now with full knowledge that Crane could, in fact die from the exposure.

But what about Superman?

Let us examine the case against him.  When a small army of super-powered aliens attempted to take over the Earth, Superman extensively worked with the United States armed forces (not just one person) to stop them.  The actions of said super-powered army caused a massive amount of destruction.  Superman, by comparision, caused much less by fighting them.  This was a war-time event.  The aliens were hostile and the military responded as such.  This means that any deaths caused indirectly by the physical confrontation between the aliens and Superman would be considered collateral damage.  Further, had the aliens not attempted to take over Earth, none of these deaths would have occurred.  There is evidence severs the link between Superman and the collateral damage (from a legal standpoint).

But what about Zod?  This is an area referred to as “justifiable homicide”. 

“Justifiable homicide is not murder at all, as it is not considered criminal. Rather, it is the taking of another's life in circumstances in which the killing was necessary as the only means of preventing the murder of one's self or to protect another. Because the killing was justifiable, the person who committed the killing will not be held criminally liable for the death, though civil liability may still exist (i.e. the decedent's family could bring a wrongful death lawsuit).”  (http://www.hg.org/murder.html) 

At the time of the incident there was no means available of effectively subduing or detaining Zod.  The military had already exhausted its attempts to detain Superman earlier, which proved futile.  There was no time or available resources to establish a detainment system to prevent Zod from continuing his rampage (the Phantom Zone generator having been destroyed at this point).  Superman’s attempt to steer Zod away from populated areas was futile as Zod was intent on returning to hot zones in an effort to inflict the most possible damage.  Lastly Zod’s next action would have resulted the immediate death of a family.  Superman’s only recourse to was to end Zod’s life, making it justifiable homicide.  Further, because he was working with an official representative of the United States armed forces with authority to move forward with defensive military actions at the time, this made his actions sanctioned by the military.

Batman, by comparison, coerces James Gordon into becoming an accomplice.  Gordon has no official authority to enlist the aid of Batman.  Batman functions as a vigilante who while sounding cool, is incredibly illegal and Gordon actively harbors him and hinders his apprehension.

Do Film Makers Ruin the Films, or is it the Fans?

 

Well, it’s been a while since I’ve really written anything substantial; mostly I’ve been wandering aimlessly around on G+ Marvel, DC Comics, and Transformers pages, so I might as well get back to basics.

So, fandom in general…what is it?  Well it’s an avid interest which can sometimes boarder on obsession on a single genre, character, or body of work.  DC Comics fandom exists in very broad strokes and can encompass hundreds or thousands of characters, comics, novels, movies, cartoons, television shows and video games.  Those that ascribe to this fandom have a vast and sometime oddly specific encyclopedia of knowledge concerning the body of work that encompasses DC Comics properties.

That can of course be narrowed down.  Maybe you are an avid Batman fan and thus might as well have a Master’s degree in all things concerning the Dark Knight.

Or perhaps you are a Transformers fan and thus have spent years, or perhaps decades devoting your free time to the property in all its incarnations.

Regardless of your fandom, whether it is to a publisher, property, or character, you have a vested interest in all media related to your fandom, and thus you take it very personally when you see it mistreated by Hollywood.

What sets fans apart from the general audience is simple, passion.  Fans have a passion for the characters, the story, and demand nothing but the best from the studio.  The general audience wants to take their dates on something that will kill two hours without having to resort to actual conversation.  And eat popcorn.  But do we, the fans, shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot when it comes to our expectations.

I’ve personally had the privilege to be on many sides of the spectrum during my professional life.  I’ve been a supervisor, a writer, and artist, an editor, and a fan.  It’s really as a supervisor and an editor, however that I’ve gotten the best perspective of how the whole equation works.  You have to dissociate yourself from the body of work, not only pick at the nuances, but the piece as a whole.  I can tell you if the whole of a story is great and then in the same sentence says “However in chapter 6, paragraph 4, and line 8 you use the word “burrito” as a verb and that can take a reader out of the scene.”  I’ve defended my employees’ actions and decisions before those casting judgement, and then once the situation is over I’ve reprimanded them for making the wrong choices or using poor judgement.  So I tend to analyze and sometimes over analyze a body of work, and I try to do so objectively from all points of view.

Take Transformers: Age of Extinction.  I’ve been with the franchise since 1985 when the toys hit my local K-Mart.  I’ve been with the robots in disguise through thick and thin, and so I had expectations as a fan when I heard the Dinobots were to grace the big screen.  I heard the outcries:  Optimus was too violent, the movie was too Michael Bay, the Dinobots had little to do, there were too many humans, etc.  I shared many of these viewpoints.  I was not pleased that Optimus was so willing to turn his back on humanity.  I was disappointed that no Dinobot got called by name or spoke.  I did feel the Transformers had little screen time.

Then I had to look at it from the general audience point of view.   I read the reviews from the critics, but the film still did amazingly well at the box office.  If it was such a bad movie, why were people throwing their money at it in droves?   Was it because people like bad movies?  Or was it a better movie than we gave it credit for because it didn’t appeal to our sensibilities?

If they made the Transformers movies just for the transformers fans, then they probably wouldn’t make their money back.  Changes had to be made to appeal to a wider audience, ones who weren’t familiar with thirty years of back story, by my count at least 20 independent animated series (counting the Japanese iterations since often story lines differed) and more comics than I care to count right now.  There was no way everyone was going to be satisfied with the end result.

The same thing happened not too long ago with Superman Returns, which was set in the same cinematic universe as the Christopher Reeve Superman films, at least the first two, with the latter two apparently excised from continuity.  The film harkened back to those old films, and avid fans of those films, myself included, loved the movie.  Yes we could pick out problems with it but we were still pretty entrenched in the nostalgia that we could look past it.  Yet the general audience and many of the broader DC Comics fans demanded more.  “Why can’t we see Superman get in a fight with someone?”  In Man of Steel they got their wish, and immediately came the cries “Superman doesn’t kill!  Why did half the city need to be destroyed?!”

Because Zach Snyder looked at the Superman mythos and decided to up the ante.  There was a call for Superman to fight someone, but that kind of fight is going to have an effect on the environment and for the most dynamic fight scene, you need a dynamic environment.  Why did Superman kill?  Because killing Zod fit with the tone of the story.

So looping back around to where this all started…did the movie makers ruin the film, or did the audience ruin it for themselves?  With everything art related, there isn’t a right or wrong answer…it’s all subjective.  Art, beauty, entertainment in general is all in the eye of the beholder.  I can criticize bad movies, but I can also appreciate them.  Batman and Robin was probably one of the worst comic book based movies ever created, and it bombed at the box office, and I hate it, but I can also appreciate it from a certain point of view.  It’s stupid beyond belief but it’s a harmless stupid.  It’s something I can pop in with friends and we can riff on.  I can watch it alone and view it through the same lens that I view the Adam West television series.  If I don’t take it seriously, then it’s not that bad.

Just to clarify, it’s still bad, but in the same way the Adam West series was.

So do I shortchange myself when I expect too much from Hollywood?  Probably.  Should I stop expect the very best product they can make?  Absolutely not.  Yes at the end of the day Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, the Ninja Turtles, and Transformers, these are all very silly concepts but that doesn’t mean they should be done sloppily, but maybe I should curb my criticism a little because before I know it, they will roll out with something else.  Maybe the next iteration will be better, maybe not, but at least we can enjoy the ride.

Thanks for reading.

Transformers: Robots in Disguise 2015 Review-Legion Class Underbite

Again, this is a figure that shows that the RID 2015 line needs to have a "Scout" class, something between Legion and One-Step Changer.  Basically he is just too small for his own good.  I picked this little guy up because, well, I'm like 99% of America and am on a budget, and I wasn't willing to shell out $10 for the One-Step based on it's reported manufacturing flaws.

Now that doesn't mean this is a bad figure.  Not by a long shot.  I honestly thought he was going to be very simplistic but I was pleasantly surprised with how complex he can be.

 

I draw attention to the figure's rear, which of course is where everyone wants to look.  Anyway, in what could have easily been a lazy flip around ended up being a moderately complex action.

Now in a departure from the rest of the line, where in most everyone eventually takes on an Earth vehicle mode, Underbite here offers no excuses or apologies, turning into some kind of Cybertronian tank thing, which honestly looks like it fell out of one of the new Batman games by Rocksteady.

 

Then there is the issue, as I stated above, about scale.  He's only in scale with two characters: Optimus Prime...

                       
                                                                    And Grimlock...

 

So, is he worth it?  Well as always that's completely subjective.  If you are a completest or on a budget, I'd say yes.  He doesn't feel cheap or flimsy and while he may be WILDLY out of scale, he's still a really well put together figure.

 

Thanks for reading.