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.

 

 

The Hero’s Journey: The Path of Sam Witwicky

                First off, I want to say, I do not hate nor do I blame Shia LaBeouf for anything.  People like to rag on him because it’s easy.  He started out a child actor, and as a young adult actor was given roles in movies that weren’t great, but that’s not his fault.  He did his job and, in the context of the end result, did it well.

Yet, we aren’t necessarily talking about him today, at least not directly.  We are talking about a character he brought to life, one Sam Witwicky, probably the most hated and derided character in the Transformers movie franchise.  However, he’s not even that bad of a character.  We have to look at what he represents, how his actions inform where he is at during the stages of his life that we see. 

In Transformers, the first live action endeavor, we meet young Sam, a high school student desperate for two things; 1) a car, and 2) to get with the girl of his dreams Mikaela Banes.  Now looking backwards in time, through the lenses of age, reason, and experience, we can criticize his choices, his actions, and his motivations…but would we really have acted much different if put in his position?  Think about it the target demographic of your average Michael Bay film…its Sam Witwicky.  That is who Michael Bay plays to, and that is the mindset of the average white heterosexual male American teenager.  You want a car that will help you get noticed by the girls.  That’s it.  Your world is hormones and you have no idea what you are doing.  At no point during the film did Sam really take charge of the situation.  He has strong feelings about Bumblebee and insists he be released, but had it not been for the intervention of Lennox and his team, along with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, he would have been overruled and kicked to the curb.  The only reason he was even there to begin with is because he’s had immediate contact with the aliens.  He has no special skills, talents, or information.  The only time he says something that everyone else in the room doesn’t already know is when he points out that Megatron is a huge threat.  They were going to find that out in a few minutes anyway and it never shifts the tone or the weight of the situation.

Essentially Sam is an unwilling participant in his story, his life has been high jacked, and that is a common element on the hero’s journey.  Often the main character will be forced along his quest by a collection of circumstances.  Luke Skywalker initially rejected Obi-Wan’s offer to become a Jedi.  Bilbo Baggins rejected Gandalf’s offer to become Thorin’s resident burglar.  Young Arthur initially scoffs at the notation that he might actually be the King of England.  Yet just like those narratives, there comes a moment where Sam, likely without thinking about it, accepts his place in the story.  Sam, after the incident at the Hoover Dam becomes a delivery man.  His job is to take the cube from point A to point B.  He has to run the ball down field and it is everyone else who heroically fights off the Decepticons to give him a clear path.  That’s not where he takes his place.  No, again that is just Sam following the direction of everyone else, like you do at that age.  You may think you are forging your own path during your teens, but how much of your own life is decided by other people?  Teachers, parents, principals, doctors, friends, parents of friends, your entire life is dictated by committee.  It wasn’t until Optimus offered himself to take on the cube’s immense power and sacrifice himself that Sam made his own decision.  He and he alone, chose to shove the cube into Megatron’s spark, killing him.  This was the Hail Mary throw.  This could have ended disastrously, but it worked.

However that doesn’t mean that Sam has control of his life now.  Quite the opposite, in Revenge of the Fallen (which I’ll talk in more detail about in a later essay), Sam has returned to his tried and true methodology of taking cues from everyone else, and it makes sense given his age.  Sam is going into college, which means he wants to take control of his own life, but he can’t quite get there.  That is very common for that demographic.  Going from high school into college is a transition period that becomes very complicated very quickly.  He continues to defer to those around him and again, he is summoned into the Hero’s Journey.  His life is defined by those around him and he reacts at lot like how many of his contemporaries react.  I think it’s here that people take issue with Shia LaBeouf because he portrayed a character who isn’t really that likeable, but that is typical for that age group.  People aren’t upset because Shia’s a bad actor or plays a bad character, but rather that the character he portrayed is a reflection of that subsection of society.  They are angry because they see themselves in the character.  A result of writing, or lack there-of created a movie that hit a lot of the same notes as the first.  Which is pretty accurate since your freshman year of college often feels like a rehashing of your high school experience.    That doesn’t excuse the production, but it does inform why they did what they did when they did it.

Where the Hero’s Journey really comes full circle is about the middle of the third film.  The beginning of the film featured another transition for the character, going from college to the world of adults and trying to find a job.  Sam is dealing with a lot at this point, he’s complaining that he got a medal from the president and saved the world twice and can’t tell anyone about it.  On one hand he’s feeling entitled because of all that he did, but on the other hand, he really didn’t do that much.  Again, his Hero’s Journey had him essentially run the ball to the goal while everyone else fought the battle.  In the second film, all he really did was plug a new battery into Optimus Prime.  Had it not been for the intervention of Jetfire, Optimus likely would have been killed again during the ensuing battle.  Sam is placing a lot of important emphasis on his past, which is what you do when you are fresh out of college.  You are hung up on what you did, but what employers, what adults, what the world wants to know is “What are you going to do now?”

That question becomes an essential theme for Sam during the movie.  As the world he knows is stripped away from him through the violence of the alien war and the betrayal of former allies, he is left with those around him telling him what to do, or rather, what not to do.  Remember our first two films?  His world was loaded with people telling him what he needed to do, what they needed him to do, but now there is no one telling him to take this here and do that, to plug that in there and restart that.  Now they just look at him and say they’ve got nothing.  Nothing he’s done to this point matters, not anymore.  He now has to ask himself “What are you going to do now?”

This, like I was saying, is where he comes full circle.  He finally has agency in his story, he picks himself up and says “I’m going in and I’m going to save the woman I love.”  Even Epps who has come with him to the edge of the city says it’s a lost cause, but he chooses to push on, and honestly, Shia sells that moment.  That is the end of the kid and the beginning of the man.  This time, people are taking cues from him, following his lead.

I was actually kind of glad that the character was absent from the fourth film, not because I didn’t like him, but rather because it was time for his character to move on.  I don’t think Michael Bay and his team would have been able to really shape the character any further, and Shia was having so many problems at the time I don’t know that he would have been able to devote much energy into continuing Sam’s story even if he wanted to.

Ultimately Sam’s story will always be one of contention because the lens of nostalgia is not a forgiving one.  I don’t know that I would mind if they revisited the Sam character later on down the road, but I would ask that they give him a new story, one where he decides where he goes from now on.

Thank you,

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.