Ok, despite Mr. Gunn not winning me over with his take on Superman, I'm willing to give this movie a chance. The reason why is because Supergirl is my favorite character in the Superman mythos. In the comics, she's kind of like Wonder Woman as far as being born and raised to be a fighter, and is not naive about some people needing to be put down. She's the type of person who shoots first and questions later due to her anger issues. Plus, she struggles to fit in with humanity to the point where she feels isolated and homesick. Heck, she has no problem turning her back on them, or doesn't see the point in protecting them. This creates tension between her and Superman.
That's what bugs me about how this character was portrayed outside of the comics; she's a female version of Superman. (except the animated stuff and Smallville to a degree)That's a huge disservice to this character. Another reason why I'm giving this movie a chance is because it this movie becomes a hit, it could lead to us getting more movies of other DC side characters. ( "Cough" Nightwing movie "Cough".) As far as the teaser trailer, it was fine. We see Supergirl not in the best state of mind; she's being hunted for unknown reasons, a little girl is involved, and we don't know what role she plays. What stood out to me in this trailer is when she said Superman sees the good in people, I see the truth. That line tells me we could get a comic-accurate Supergirl.
Sadly, people online didn't like the trailer because it reminded them of GOTG. Look, you can say what's in the trailer is in the recent Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow comics that doesn't change the fact that this makes Mr. Gunn look like a one-trick pony to the general public. I don't see how he could have done this movie differently, maybe picked a different comic book story to adapt to be on the safe side. Also, the general public should be able to appreciate these films without reading the comics. Then again, people shouldn't talk about something without knowing anything about the subject.
They also complain about Supergirl being a flawed character. Why!?! Do you want her to be the female version of Superman? They are also worried that the comedy could undermine Supergirl's dealing with her trauma. I understand why people are worried about this movie; however, their complaints are disingenuous. A trailer paying homage to a different franchise is not enough to raise red flags. How many of you were wrong about Predator Badlands?
Overall, the trailer didn't scare me away from wanting to watch this movie because I don't expect much from it. As long as I have a good time with it, I'm fine with that.
Intro: In case you're wondering, No! I don't plan on doing this for other comic book characters. When I write about comic book characters, I already expressed my overall issues with them that could affect the writing or my ability to enjoy their stories. For example, it's hard to get into the Flash and Hulk comics because of how powerful they are. It's hard to get into the Punisher comics because of how narrow-minded he is in dealing with the villains. It's hard to get into Wonder Woman comics because the writers don't know what to do with her.
When it comes to Batman, the writers did things with the Batman lore over the years that bugs me. Another reason why I'm doing this is because the Batman Kool-Aid is stronger than my addiction to Cinnamon Toast Crunch as a kid. Find me ten reaction videos where people are annoyed that they're getting another LEGO Batman game if you don't believe me. Where's the hashtag give us a LEGO Justice League game?!? Warning! If you haven't read Batman comics from the past 25 years, don't read this post.
I don't know about you, but the quality of Batman comics from the 2000s until now has been a rollercoaster for me. Part of the reason is because there isn't one writer that I enjoy reading most of his or her work. Since No Man's Land, the year-long stories are not up to par. (The same thing goes for the crossover comics.) We have War Games,Murderer/Fugitive, and I'll talk about the rest later. War Games is a mess, and Murderer/Fugitive wouldn't last a year if Bruce/Batman was proactive. (Also, Shadow of the Bat #55 did this story better.)
If there were a Mount Rushmore of Batman writers, it would be Chuck Dixon, Paul Dini, Alan Grant, and I can't think of a fourth person. ( I was going to pick the late Dennis O' Neil, but his run has some goofiness to them.) The only problem I have with Paul Dini is that I don't agree with keeping Nora Freeze dead because keeping her alive makes Mr. Freeze more sympathetic. Greg Rucka is one of the worst Batman writers; like I said, he doubles down on Batman's worst traits, and it was all for nothing.
Jeph Loeb is an overrated Batman writer. I'm surprised that The Long Halloween and Hush are popular Batman stories because we don't know who the Holiday killer is, and Dark Victory is a retread of its predecessor, but with a few changes. Hush is underwhelming. What's the point of the Riddler knowing Bruce is Batman if it has no payoff? Dead Reckoning from Detective Comics issues 777 to 782 is a better mystery than this. (It's a shame that it didn't get reprinted in trade paperback, but I digress.) I'm also indifferent to the character Hush. Thankfully, Paul Dini fixed that with Heart of Hush and Streets of Gotham. Mr. Loeb hasn't given us a good Batman mystery; to be fair, that genre has lost its novelty. Hush 2 and The Last Halloween make him look worse as a writer. Do I really have to comment on how bad Hush 2 is? Plus, I want to put him in the most painful submission hold for doing Bane dirty. The Last Halloween may be better, but he should have left that series alone.
Judd Winick is an underrated Batman writer. I say that because he didn't get a fair run with the character. He only wrote two Batman stories; they are Under the Red Hood and As the Crow Files. Both of those stories were undermined by the crossover event at the time. I would like to see him get another run at Batman instead of Grant Morrison. Or write stories for other Batman characters. What he did with Dick Grayson in Batman: Long Shadow is decent, and I can't comment on what he did with Catwoman.
Let's start with Scott Snyder; his run on Batman didn't do it for me. The only thing he wrote I like was Zero Year. That story shows that the Riddler can be a big threat and pays homage to three other Batman stories. I have mixed feelings about the Court of Owls saga. I like the idea of a secret organization that knows everything and everyone in the city; however, making it a part of Batman lore oversimplifies things. I mean, having them behind the crimes in Gotham or playing a role in Bruce's parents being murdered takes away any complexity in Bruce/Batman's efforts in saving the city from itself. Also, the Talons are far-fetched for this group. No writer has capitalized on how much of a threat they can be, as far as I know.
I don't like the direction he took with the Joker in Endgame. I don't care about Batman Eternals; that story is about a series of events that are orchestrated by one person. That story had already been told twice, and Eternals didn't break any new ground. I couldn't get into the absolute Batman because the character models turn me off. The way Bane easily beat Batman in their first encounter annoys me because that's what I was expecting from Ra's al Ghul. Why is he called the Demon's head if he's not going to live up to that title? I'm still waiting for a Batman version of Wrath of Khan. Going back to Bane, I like what Scott Snyder has done with the character. I just wish this were done in the new 52 instead of this.
Tim King's run was disappointing; I mean, I expected more from a former CIA Officer. I will say this; I like that his run has an overall story, and that story did a better job at what the Hush story tried to do. As far as having events in the story lead up to something. When the build-up to your main story is better than the main story, something is wrong. The war between Jokes and Riddles could have been better if A it didn't happen in Batman's early years, and B the conflict between The Joker and the Riddler wasn't lame. Tom King wrote three things I like; they are Cold Days, I am Bane, and Gotham Year One. Cold Days is a Batman version of 12 Angry Men, I am Bane made Bane scary, and Gotham Year One is what the Gotham series should have been. City of Bane could have been better if he was behind everything and only had Batman characters. Also, what's the point of killing off Alfred in that story if it does little to nothing for Bruce/Batman as a character?
Chip Zdarsky's run is far-fetched, ridiculous, and retreads what was done before with no rhyme or reason. The first story, ARC, is a response to the Tower of Babel, as far as what is Batman's plan to stop himself from going rogue? His response is to create an A.I. called failsafe. I like the irony behind this story, but we didn't need it for two reasons. First of all, Nightwing and Black Bat can beat him in hand-to-hand combat. Tim Drake can rival his detective skills, and Oracle can heck his tech. Second, it makes Batman look stupid. I mean, whatever lesson he suppose to gain from this story, he should have learned in the Tower of Babel. Really, he should have learn this is War Games because that story is about a contingency plan they blow up in his face. Also, in that story, Batman fell from space and landed on Earth. I know you have to suspend your disbelief with comics, but there's a limit.
Towards the end of his next story, Batman meets different versions of himself. This was fun, but everything around it wasn't. Do I really have to comment on Joker year one? I enjoyed his last story ARC, called The Dying City. That story is about Batman solving a murder that turns into a conspiracy. I just wish that story didn't make Jim Gordon and Thomas Wayne look bad. I also like the first story he wrote in Batman Urban Legends because it was a nice follow-up to Under the Red Hood. Chip Zdarsky could have been a better Batman writer if he had focused on writing street-level stories for the character and hadn't played with past events.
Grant Morrison's run is polarizing. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what he tried to do as far as bringing elements from the Gold and Silver ages to modern comics. However, the end result ranges from being clever to messy. Also, you can't read a random story in his run without knowing what happened beforehand. ( Grant, that's a problem I have with comic books in general, but I digress.) Another thing that hurt his run is that Batman is OP with the contingency plans.
This is one of the reasons why Batman is hard to write; whenever he's in a dire situation, fans won't take it seriously because they know or suspect that he planned for it.
I blame Mark Waid, the writer of Tower of Babel, for this. Ever since that story, the fans took Batman having contingency plans and ran with it. I hate to burst their bubble, but when it comes to prep time, he's not better than Dr. Doom. IfSamurai Jack can make fun of how ridiculous and frustrating prep time is, why can't you see the problem with it?
This run starts with Batman and Son, where we are introduced to the second most annoying character in the Batman mythos, Damian Wayne. Yes! I know Damian has become less insufferable over the years thanks to Peter J. Tomasi's and Joshua Williamson's run of Batman and Robin, but you know what they say about first impressions. Plus, he's not in any good stories to help us appreciate his growth. Peter J Tomasi's run, jump the shark, and Joshua Williamson's run is a mixed bag for me. I'm interested in the latest story because Bruce and Damian are finally in a good place in their relationship.
Batman and Son was OK, but the direct-to-video movie was better. After that story and before R.I.P., everything else in between ranges from OK to meh. My gripe with R.I.P. is that the Black Glove didn't make the best first impression. Part of the reason is that we don't learn anything about the leader, Dr. Hurt, until toward the end of his run. Also, before R.I.P., the Black Glove had Batman dead to rights, and they blew it. The return of Bruce Wayne had a fun concept of Bruce traveling through different time periods, but the story around it can be confusing. Overall, Grant Morrison's run didn't impress me.
Tom Taylor has only written two stories so far and is in the middle of his third. I don't care about the first story for two reasons. First of all, it plays with Batman's origin. Second, it explores his no-kill rule for the millionth time. That's another thing that hurts Batman stories is the no-kill rule fatigue. If you're not going to have Batman kill someone or let someone die, then don't explore his no-kill rule again. I'm also tired of people ending up dead after learning the hero's identity trope. I like the second story because it can work as a satire of Batman. The current story looks like a rehash of Contagion and Fear for Sale.
That's the problem with comic books in general; when you write stories for a character that's been around for a long time, you tend to recycle stories that's been done before.
The writer of Detective Comics before Tom Taylor had Batman fight against supernatural villains, which I find off-putting. Those villains are too powerful for him. We didn't need Joker Wars and Fear State. The Joker doesn't care whose under the mask, why should that matter now? We already have a story of Scarecrow pumping the city with fear gas; why do we need another one? I have nothing to say about Jace Fox as Batman because I think it's funny. How can DC give us Black Batman when Black men are too busy being Robin?
For twenty-five years now, Batman writers haven't been batting a thousand. There are two recent Batman stories that I enjoy; they are Batman and Robin: Year One and Batman: Dark Patterns. Batman and Robin: Year One focuses on Bruce and Dick going through the growing pains in and out of costume, which is the heart of the story. The only complaint I have with that story is how Dick Grayson is depicted; he reminds me of Jason Todd at times. Also, that story went in a direction with Clayface that I've been wanting to see for years, that is, making its own version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Batman: Dark Patterns focuses on Batman being a detective.
The only suggestion I have from the writers is that they need to be more creative with Batman's rogues gallery, other than killing them off, making them anti-heroes, or being second fiddle to the Joker. For example, the first mystery in Batman: Dark Patterns could've worked as a Hush Story. Really, that's what he should have done to the Joker in Hush 2. I would like to see more stories of Hugo Strange playing mind games with Bruce/Batman or turning the Bat-family against him. If you can't do anything new with Man-Bat and Mr. Freeze other than doubling down on what Paul Dini did with him in Batman TAS, then leave them alone. Heck, they don't use the villains Paul Dini introduced in the streets of Gotham.
They also need to cut the fat with Batman's allies. Killing off Alfred and demoting Jim Gordon is not what I had in mind. I mean, get rid of Batwoman, Batwing, Bluebird, the Signal. Seriously, with Catwoman, Nightwing, Red Hood, Batgirl, and Robin having their own series. Plus, Birds of Prey and The Outsiders, Batman can have his own Bat-verse ( Don't even think about Hollywood.) With that said, I would like to see Leslie Thompkins fill in Alfred's role. Also, how did Cassandra Cain go from Batgirl to Black Bat to Orphan?
That's all I have to say about this topic for now.
Well, this is a terrible way to celebrate YouTube's 20th anniversary. If you are one of those people who complain about how this website has gone downhill will things are about to get worse. For those of you who don't know, on August 13, YouTube will have a new age restriction system where an AI algorithm will determine your age based on what you watch on the site. If it thinks you're underage, you have to show your ID, your picture, or your SS card to verify yourself. This is already implemented in the U.K., and it will be implemented on other sites like Spotify.
People in power need a hobby because they have too much time on their hands. First, you want to censor games (even though AO games don't get promoted), then Texas wants to censor anime, and now this. YouTube already has age restrictions. What's wrong with that? Speaking of that, it went overboard, I mean, the site put an age restriction on videos of the news covering fights and women dangling their shoes. Really?
If you believe the rhetoric of this is done to protect kids, you're a fool. There are so many reasons why this is BS. First of all, why didn't you protect Millennials from Chunky?
My editor: Come on, that's not a fair question. Kids like to get scared, remember Goosebumps?
Me: That's the thing no one talked about, how the Goosebumps books or series gave them nightmares. Plus, the recent movie makes the series look goofy.
Kids were the only ones talking about how scary he is, and yet Hollywood keeps making movie after movie with his ugly mug. Movies about killer dolls are not bringing the Horror genre a lot of money, so why do they keep making movies about them? Now there is the Mandela effect with him, where he's not as creepy as we remember. You know what, if you don't think Scarface can carry a Batman movie, then a horror movie of a killer doll shouldn't be greenlit.
Second mass shooting, despite no news report of one happening in two or three years (as far as I know), we've done a bang-up job of protecting them from that. I already explained what people can do to stop this from happening; if you're not doing it, then we shouldn't make a big deal about mass shootings. What about protecting kids from their parents? I mean, I'm tired of seeing a certain group of women traumatizing their kids by getting arrested or manhandled in front of them for no reason. Why don't you pass a bill that says if you want to be a parent, you have to undergo a psych evaluation or take a parenting class? What about kids who are homeless and being trafficked? What are you doing to protect them from that?
I can't believe you will draw the line with kids being exposed to inappropriate images and not the other things I mentioned. Last I checked, monitoring what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to is the parents job! Really, what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to is debatable, but I digress. This is why our youth is messed up, because people are not doing their part or overstepping their boundaries. I already talked about how teachers and parents do this to each other, so I'm not going to repeat myself. Speaking of teachers, they talk about how kids can't read. I know they don't care about that because that's what they wanted, I mean, people smart enough to do their job but not question or rival the hierarchy. If I'm wrong about that, what are you going to do to fix that?
To the people who agree with the AI algorithm, how will you protect the user's information? YouTube is not above being hacked; look at what happened to the Tea app. Heck, you can't protect us from spam calls or emails. You don't think this will encourage more identity theft? Just admit that you're doing this to sell our info. What about music that has more influence over anyone than what you watch or see. What are you doing about the other music sites?
Bottom line is this; stop messing with the human experience or nature. Getting in trouble comes with the territory. We bond by talking about doing things that we shouldn't have done. When I was growing up, there was a porn channel on cable. I didn't know what it was at the time because the picture was fuzzy. To the people who did things that they shouldn't have done, growing up, did it ruin your life? If the answer is no, then that's my point. I mean, you can't tell people to work past their childhood trauma and then give them a backhanded compliment by making a big deal about it after the fact. If we can work past our trauma, then losing our innocence is not that bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect our youth's innocence, but you can't keep flip-flopping.
I hope this censorship nonsense blows up in their face. Then again, I was wrong about Nintendo Switch 2 being the lowest-selling console. That's all I have to say about this subject for now.
Recapping what I said when I reviewed Secret Invasion. I'm saying goodbye to the MCU because this is the last time I'm going to talk about it. Is anyone really interested in their take on the Fantastic Four or the X-Men?
Intro: Well, that didn't age well.
After I saw the movie. OK, whoever marketed this movie should be fired because the marketing did this movie no favors. I hope this movie doesn't suffer the same fate as Transformers One.
Fantastic Four First Step: This movie takes place in a different universe where the Fantastic Four have been around for four years. ( Was that intended to be a pun?) One day, the Silver Surfer shows up to warn them that Galactus will come to eat their planet, so they go into space to confront him. Galactus will spare Earth if they give up something precious to them, but they refuse. So, they have to figure out how to stop him without giving in to his demand.
After thirty years, we finally get a decent Fantastic Four movie. ( I'm not going to Jinx myself by saying Marvel Studios has redeemed itself because this isn't the first time they throw us a bone and go back to their stick.) This movie may not have a lot of jokes, but it can take itself seriously and be fun. I appreciate that this movie isn't an origin story, and it didn't have you know who in it. Because doing that gives us something new.
Heck, this movie made up for what Rise of the Silver Surfer could have been, because this movie has some of the same story beats from that film. I like the retro-future look and feel of the film. Because it's done in a way that it's not oversaturated by CGI. The passage of time helps give this movie world-building. Of course, there are easter eggs in the film. This movie is about family first and a sci-fi movie second. The story may be simple, but it's effective due to its underdog aspects.
Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic is a brilliant man who thinks ahead and does not know when to think about the here and now. He does have moments of dry humor, and I wish there was more of that. I was let down that the movie doesn't do anything new with his abilities. He feels like a discount Spider-Man in this movie. Also, he did something that makes him look stupid.
Sue Storm/ Invisible Woman is the heart and soul of the family. Not only that, she's the standout character in this film. When Sue and Reed are together, you're convinced that they are a loving and supportive married couple. I just wish there was more banter between them. The only complaint I have with her is that I'm having a hard time buying that she's as powerful as she is in this movie. ( If I'm wrong, then I need to read more comics.)
I'm surprised by what this movie has done with Johnny Storm/The Human Torch. He's not only the comic relief, but his smart in his own right. This becomes useful towards the end. A minor complaint is that the movie doesn't showcase him being a goofball.
I don't have much to say about Ben Grimm/The Thing because the movie hasn't done much with him besides giving us subtle hints that he's still adjusting to his body. His interaction with Johnny is what you expect from brothers. How in the world can someone whose body is made of rocks can grow facial hair!?!
The Silver Surfer is underdeveloped; more could have been done with her.
There is nothing much to say about Galactus ( the main villain); he's a cosmic giant that eats planets. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't get why people want him as the villain in the next Avengers movie because there isn't much you can do with him, but I digress.
One of the problems I have with this movie is that I was annoyed that the Fantastic Four roughs gallery was treated like a montage. The jokes this movie has didn't do it for me. I wish the writers could have done more with the dilemma Galactus put the Fantastic Four in.
All in all, if I had a list of the best comic book movies, this would be one of them. I would recommend this to everyone.
Intro: OK, I understand why Mr. Gunn removed Legacy from the title, but he couldn't replace it with Man of Tomorrow? I hope the Supergirl movie doesn't waste that title.
Superman: This movie is centered on Clark Kent, who has been Superman for three years. He's catching a lot of heat for stopping a war. Lex Luthor made things worse by turning everyone against him, and he has plans of his own that could endanger millions of lives. So, Superman has to clear his name and stop Lex before it's too late.
Why, oh why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie!?! Don't get me wrong, this movie wasn't awful. However, it lacks focus and has too many subplots. This movie is a product of its time, as far as social media playing a role in the story. However, it has no payoff. I mean, if the movie is trying to be a social commentary on how gullible people are with social media, it drops the ball. I find it hard to believe that Superman has been around for three years because there are things that don't add up.
As far as people being upset with him for stopping a war that gets lost in the plot. This makes me want to give a backhanded compliment to Superman 4 before getting involved in the arms race; Superman thinks, talks to people, and a kid wants him to do something about it. This movie could have been about people taking Superman for granted; Superman has to realize that he can't save everyone and deal with the politics of it.
The biggest problem I have with this movie is how Lex manipulates the public, because this could rub fans the wrong way. I know this was done in Smallville, but that show did it better. The other DC characters take time away from what's going on with the main characters. There is one DC character that shouldn't be in the movie because this character served no purpose. Also, Ultraman is not who you think he is. I'm annoyed that (censor.) is in this movie because that's not his only weakness! The CGI doesn't always look good, and I wish the film had an original score instead of remixing John Williams's score.
Clark Kent/Superman is passable; I just wish he didn't fall short in one area. Superman doesn't just save people; he boosts their morale. Why wasn't that in the movie? I don't like how the writers make him relatable. I mean, he gets upset over tweets, and there is one scene where he acts impulsively. I understand why he acted that way, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes him look stupid. I was let down that his ACR isn't about learning that no good deed goes unpunished. I say that because the writers can make a story out of that.
I don't have much to say about Clark Kent because he's barely in the movie. What bugs me about him is how can he be a journalist and not know the dos and don'ts of interviewing?
Lois Lane is a hard-nosed reporter. The movie doesn't do much with her besides pondering her relationship with Clark/Superman. Speaking of their relationship, it's hard to care about it because it's second fiddle to everything else. Plus, it feels like they are trying to have a rapport. Also, she's not as visually appealing as the other women in this movie.
Jimmy Olsen is also a Journalist instead of a photographer. It's hard to appreciate that he's a ladies man because we don't see him sweep women off their feet.
I don't have much to say about Clark's parents because they are barely in the movie. With that said, the scene between Clark and his father makes his father look lazy as a parent.
Krypto is a loyal but undisciplined dog. We get an explanation for why that is. I feel like he's in the movie to make Superman relatable, and you know how I feel about that.
Guy Gardner/ Green Lantern is the comic relief, who is mission-oriented.
Mr. Terrific is handled better than he was handled on Arrow, but he left more to be desired. The same goes for Hawkgirl. The only complaint I have is that there is one scene with him that references GOTG.
Lex Luthor (the main villain) is the Lex we know and despise. As far as being brilliant, vain, and obsessed with destroying Superman. He can come off as childish and over the top at times, which can be off-putting.
I like that the movie is colorful and goofy. This is a better example of what Dawn of Justice could have been. The DC characters served their purpose in this movie as far as world-building. I was surprised to see two of them in this movie. We get an explanation for why people don't recognize Clark as Superman with the glass. Lex has a Loki moment in this movie.
Overall, this movie fell short of being as good as it could've been. With that said, I would recommend that everyone check it out because this movie is fun.
Intro: The next time Hollywood has a writer's strike, don't have any news outlets cover it. If this is the best the writers can do, then they don't deserve better. Does anyone have bad or lazy writing fatigue, or is it just me?
Jurassic World Rebirth: This movie takes place five years after the last movie and the dinosaurs are slowly dying. This causes a man name Martin Krebs to recruit a small group to go on an island to extract DNA from three different dinosaurs to help humanity. Things get complicated when a family gets caught in the middle and learns of a secret that has been kept hidden for years. So the group has to do their best to get off the island.
This is JP3 but better! I say that because the characters have a reason to be on the island. The director plays with our expectations with the suspects. Of course, there are references to past films, the movie is well paced and the visuals are fine. The movie comments on the pharmaceutical industry and breakthroughs in science. However, the film doesn't do much with them. The dinosaurs are portrayed as animals and the movie has moments of humor.
There isn't much to say about the characters because they are forgettable.
Dr. Henry Loomi is a dinosaur geek and the voice of reason.
Zora Bennett is a disappointing lead character. The only thing we get from her is past trauma. What's the point of us learning that about her if it serves no purpose in the story or the character? The same thing goes for Duncan Kincaid.
Martin Krebs is a wild card in the movie.
The family is OK, but more could have been done with the boyfriend.
One of the problems with this movie is that the jokes aren't always executed well. The ending was underwhelming and I wish the marketing hadn't spoiled the big surprise in this movie. There could be some continuity errors and the dinosaurs are treated like random encounters. There is a scene in the movie that's ridiculous, you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it. This movie could have made up for the last film, but it dropped the ball. This is the second movie about dinosaurs roaming the Earth. Instead of getting a post-apocalyptic Earth, we treat them like they are a huge inconvenience. What the fudge!?!
The last movie mentioned that dinosaur DNA could help mankind, but it was focused on. This movie could have been about humanity having a civil war over the dinosaurs. They are too dangerous to roam free but too valuable to kill off. I hope this is the last movie in this franchise because whatever direction the writers take with the next film should have been done sooner. By the time we get there, it will be too late. This franchise wasted enough of my time and money; it's not getting any more of it!
Overall, this is a by-the-numbers entry to this franchise. It could have been better if the movie had played or subverted our expectations. I would recommend this if you like JP3.
Just like Arkham Origins, this was a polarizing game in the franchise. Before it was released in the US, it got good reviews, with Gamespot being the weakest, giving it a 7 or 7.5 out of 10. Part of the reason why is because the PC launch was a mess, lack of boss fights, and there was one element of the game that overstayed its welcome. Also, like Arkham Origins, some people's views on the game have changed despite Origins being buggy. As far as Arkham Origins goes, I wouldn't have minded the game's story if it took place on Batman's tenth anniversary.
This was my reaction to the Black Mask twist.
I don't like being taken for a fool. I'm not going to focus on The Arkham Knight's gameplay or mechanics, I will be focusing on the game's story. What can I say about the Batmobile that's already been said? Before I get into the story, I just want to say I wish Rocksteady would get the fans more involved with these games, as far as asking us what bat-suit we want to use as skins. I wish curing Man-Bat was a boss battle. The Azrael side mission is my favorite because it shows how subliminal messages work.
The story is the weakest part of the game for me. I know saying that goes against what I said about video games should focus on gameplay first and story second, but this is a rare case. Plus, games have evolved from that; they can tell stories in a way that movies can't. (That's one of the reasons why most video game movies suck, but I digress.) The game's story sounds fine on paper, but it's a mess in practice. That's a shame because the story can be fixed with a few adjustments. Let's start with talking about the Arkham Knight.
Despite being annoyed that Jason Todd is the Arkham Knight, I wouldn't have minded it so much if this was revealed at the end of the ACE Chemicals mission. By doing that, you give Bruce /Batman time to process this reveal, flesh out their story and make their ending feel less rushed. For example, how does Bruce feel that he couldn't find Jason until now, does that haunt him like not finding his parent's killer? We don't know because the game doesn't give us time to explore that question. Also, we don't know anything about this game version of Jason Todd. We learn things about him, but we don't experience them. I know these games are made for fans, but they play with the Batman lore.
Jason endangered and killed GOD knows how many people, and he gets to Rome free, what gives Batman!?! I don't mind the idea of someone who knows Batman tactics being a villain, I just wish the writers used a different character. Jason wasn't the type of villain who had a vendetta against Batman. Plus, he was more of an anti-hero. He wasn't as big of a threat as he could have been in the game. I mean, nothing he did has a long-term effect on Batman. This game didn't do Jason Todd justice. I say that because he wasn't a coward in the comics. In this game, he abducts the only Batman ally that's disabled, he doesn't fight Batman directly, and as the game goes on, he becomes unhinged. For someone who's leading an Army against one man, this is a bad look. Don't get me started on his motivation to want Batman dead. I'm not saying the Joker brainwashing Jason into hating Batman isn't believable; however, I don't like how it's done.
This was done better in The Dark Knight because the Joker didn't have to do much to Harvey Dent for him to turn heel. Plus, the Joker gave him the option to kill him. I wish that was in the game. Pairing him up with Scarecrow also hurts the character because they both want different things. Yes! The Arkham Knight said he wants Batman to suffer, but he really wants to kill him. Instead of wanting Batman dead, he should turn his allies against him. I say that because that was his second motivation; I mean, he resents Bruce for viewing him as a soldier. Jason expressed this in the comics, but it wasn't focused on.
I'm surprised this wasn't done in the comics because it shouldn't be hard for him to get Barbara and Dick on his side. Barbara was also a victim of The Joker, and Dick almost killed him if it wasn't for Batman. Damian Wayne is also bloodthirsty, and Jason parallels with Selina/Catwoman. I'm surprised they didn't have a relationship instead of him and Talia, but I digress. It would be interesting to see a Bat-family civil war. Despite the Joker being dead in the game, there are other sadistic villains like Victor Zsasz and Prof. Pyg. This is the general public's first introduction to this character, and the game could have done more with him.
Before I get into the Scarecrow, I just want to say that if we do get a Batman movie with the Scarecrow, I don't want him to use fear gas. Fear gas is becoming a crutch for the character; I want him to find another way to expose people's fear or find a substitute for fear gas. If this game doesn't make you a Scarecrow fan, nothing will. He won before the game started; his goal was to discredit Batman, and he did. Heck, he even says it in the game. Batman did stop him, but it was a bittersweet victory.
If you think his backup plans are ridiculous, how do you think I feel about Batman's contingency plans? I hope this puts it into perspective. ( I doubt it because the pus... I mean his Kool-Aid is too good.) With that said, I find it jarring that the whole city is covered in fear gas, and after Batman fixed that, the game goes back to normal. I wish the Scarecrow was as charismatic as he was in the first game. Instead of pairing him with the Arkham Knight, he should have been paired with Hush. I say that because they both want the same thing; the difference is that Hush wants to discredit Bruce Wayne.
I'm mad that this game wasted his side mission because more could have been done with it. You know I would like to see a movie with these two or Clayface that would make a good psychological thriller, but I digress. As much as I enjoy the Joker hallucinations, they should have been removed from the game. They don't express how Batman feels about the Joker's death; the most we get is an implication that he let the Joker die. It's bad enough that this franchise focuses on these two, but this makes it worse.
As far as Batman's subplot, I wish it was about dealing with his obsession with crime instead of becoming the Joker. I mean, is he obsessed to the point where he enjoys it and doesn't care about the collateral damage? Going in this direction will give the ending to Arkham City pay off, help with my suggestion with Jason Todd and the game ending. Batman Beyond tried to do this, but it didn't go far enough. Plus, he doesn't talk about how he feels about the Joker being dead, going in that direction can make up for that. Instead of him saying goodbye to everyone at the end of the game, he should try to make amends with everyone. Why did this game tell us that Batman died? The way this game ended reminds me of TDKR ending.
Overall, the story left more to be desired, and it makes the gameplay experience a mixed bag for me. That's all I have to say about this game for now.
I don't know about you, but I'm surprised that the Hulk is one of the most popular Marvel characters for two reasons. (No! Not having any fan films is not one of them.) Do I really have to tell you the first reason? He's OP! People love to talk about how OP Superman is, where is that energy for the Hulk? Also, it's hard to appreciate how powerful he is when the thing gives him a run for his money, and Venom Spider-Man makes him look bad. The fact that the Illuminati can't help him is hard to swallow. The same thing for Rouge can't handle absorbing the Hulk's power.
Second, people don't appreciate what he represents. The Hulk is suppose to be a representation of how destructive anger is. Judging by all the body cam, court cam, and WSHH videos, we are doing a terrible job of internalizing that. Again, why is this character popular if people, especially New Yorkers, don't appreciate the metaphor? Why are people not talking about people not regulating their anger like they do people being entitled? We only talk about it when it comes to a certain group of women. This makes anger management look bad.
I get annoyed when I see movies try to address this issue because they deal with it on a surface level instead of getting to the root of the problem.
For example, anger and rage are not the same thing, just like being sad and being depressed are not the same thing. Tyler Perry tried to do that with his film Acrimony, but he dropped the ball. One of the methods of dealing with anger is reformed thinking. For example, righteous anger can do more harm than good because you are not calm or collected. When you are not calm or collected, you put yourself at risk of saying or doing something that will make things worse. People getting angry over disrespect is a can of worms that can get its own topic. I'll just say this, that's something you need to rethink. Everything is not about your bruised ego, I mean, respect. If you get mad over unfairness, all I can say is Grow up!
The problem I have with Bruce Banner/The Hulk is that he's depressing. He spends his time isolated from the world because he can't be around anyone and he doesn't know who to trust because of the Hulk. So he tries to get rid of the Hulk when he does, he has to take the Hulk back under certain circumstances. There is one comic where Bruce took the Hulk back because Betty showed interest in someone else. ( I'm face-palming.) Do you want me to feel sorry for him or not?
He can't control the Hulk because the Hulk has his own personality. It's hard to have a satisfying life with the Hulk in it. It's hard to make that concept fun or engaging. This is what turns me off to the 1970s Hulk show, and the goofiness of it was jarring. The famous 2003 Hulk movie bored me to tears. Thankfully, the 2008 movie didn't have that problem because the director made the film entertaining, and Bruce is being proactive about his problem. It's a shame that movie got the cold shoulder in the MCU.
Speaking of the MCU, it didn't do the Hulk any favors. Besides his sole film, he is treated like a side character with nothing much to do. Prof. Hulk wasn't impressive, really, if I wanted to see a smart Hulk, the studio should have given me Joe Fixit. Before the MCU, the Hulk comics weren't sailing like they did in the 80s; he had two cartoons that no one talks about, one movie that is or isn't underrated, and two video games.
This video sums up my reaction to his fight with Thanos.
I know Marvel Studios nerfed the Hulk beforehand, but it didn't bother me as much as this. If this studio thinks the Hulk was too powerful, why bring him into the MCU? The less I say about She-Hulk, the better. How can Captain America: Brave New World be a sequel to the last Hulk film without the title character? To be fair, I can't blame Marvel Studios for this because Universal still has rights to the character. I don't get it, why keep the rights to this I.P. if you're not going to do anything to make money off of it? Come on, give us a cartoon, a video game, a theme park ride, something. I wish Red Hulk was in the last Hulk movie to add Irony to that movie, but I digress.
I don't think bringing Bruce Banner/the Hulk into the MCU was a mistake; however, he should have been used sparingly. He should be used as a last resort when the situation is dire, like the Transformers did with the Dinobots in G1. Doing that is still risky because the Hulk is more of a liability than an asset. That's another issue I have with how the MCU handles the Hulk it doesn't show the Hulk as a wildcard. The Ultimate Avengers direct-to-video movie did a better job at this.
As far as turning the Hulk into a film franchise is tricky. How can you make a film about a character whose OP, who isn't that smart, depending on which Hulk is used, and his allies deal with him from a distance? If the response to this is to make a Plant Hulk movie, Thor: Ragnarok kind of wasted it. Also, the Marvel Executives are not crazy about making another Hulk movie because the last two didn't do well at the box office. This wouldn't bother me if this studio didn't make truckloads of money over the years. Stop acting like you don't have money to burn.
If we ever do get another Hulk movie, there are three things I want from it. The first thing is I want it to be about internal conflict, whether it's Bruce and Hulk finding common ground, dealing with the root of anger, or dealing with personality disorders. The second thing is, I don't want the villain to be similar to the Hulk; give us Half-Life. Finally, I want the movie to exploit the Hulk's weakness for cats. To get a movie like that, the general public have to do their part as far as being willing to pay top dollar for a movie like that. Considering how successful the Smile films are, that shouldn't be a problem.
If the Hulk is going to keep his status as the third most popular Marvel character, something needs to be done with this character to maintain the public interest. That's all I have to say about the character for now. What do you think should've been done about the Hulk?
