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.