My rant about movies based on people and true events

My rant about movies based on people and true events.


                         

Besides Horror films, movies that are based on People and true events are the types of films that I’m not crazy about watching. The reason why is because there's no surprise in watching them especially if you're already familiar with the person or the event. Also, this seems like a cheap why for actors and actresses to win an Oscar, no offense OK I’m sure you're wondering how can I like watching movies based on Comic books or novels and not want to watch movies based on people or events? The answer is simple Comic books and Novels are fiction, when I watch those movies, I don’t expect them to be accurate to the source martial most of the time. With that said that doesn't change the fact that writers making changes from the source martial bothers me, well it depends on what changes the creators make. 

That’s what bugs me about the films based on people and events, those films add or change things that didn’t happen in real life. This annoys me because I consider that an insulting thing to do especially if the person is dead or something happen that became part of history. Like I said when you make a movie about someone or a real-life event you have a responsibility to honor the and what happen. If studios don’t think that the real story of someone isn’t good enough on its own, then why bother making movies out of it? I know Hollywood is money hungry but let’s be respectful. I was jaw dropped that Titanic and the Social Network won Oscars and became hit films because those films weren’t accurate. The Titanic movie dishonored the memory of the people on that ship. As for the Social Network really? Mr. Zuckerberg became famous because he badmouths his girlfriend online. Almost anyone can do that watch. 

Venessa, you are the most stupid, brainless, manly, unforgivable, useless, butt infected, spineless, non-seductive, disgusting, fake, careless, obnoxious women I have ever met so far. See where’s my Facebook deal?

I was really surprised that Disney did this with the Disney movie Pocahontas, because Pochaontas is a real person and things happen with her tribe that took place in our history and the history of Native Americans. It's one thing to trash our own history its worst to do it to someone else's history. The bottom line is this if you're making a movie that's retelling someone's history you need to be very careful about doing it.

My I robot review

 My I robot review 

 

Intro: I'm surprised that this movie isn't a sequel to Blade Runner because it could work as one. 

I Robot: This movie takes place in the year 2035 where Humans and Robots co-exist thanks to the three laws robots follow. One day the founder of these robots is murdered and Detective Spooner suspense one of the robots killed him. During the investigation, Detective Spooner learns that there's more to this murder, so he has to figure out what it is before things get out of hand. 

This is one of the worse adaptations I've ever seen so far. I say that because this movie has nothing to do with the book it's based on, so what's the point of calling this movie I robot? What bugs me about this is that there is a screenplay for I robot so why didn't the people who worked on this movie use that? Even if this movie was called something else it won't change how I feel about it because it wasted its premise by making it a standard action movie. The reason I say that this movie could have been a sequel to Blade Runner is that the novel did the same thing that this movie did but differently. The mystery could have been good if it wasn't for the head-scratching moments. That's another thing the movie suffers from plot holes. The movie does nothing new with the dynamic between humans and robots. I would like to know how this world works I mean the robots do public services jobs. So what happens to the people who can do those jobs but not good enough to do anything else? The product placement in this movie annoys me because it's in your face.  

Detective Spooner is a pleasant person to be around for the most part. he also biased towards robots because of an ordeal he when through. That's what bothers me about this character I find it hard to believe that he can be the only one who feel this way about the robots. Also, I wish someone would challenge his viewpoint on them to see if he's a hypocrite. 

Susan Calvin is an employee at USR the place that builds the robots and she sucks at her job. I say that because her job is to make them look human. She's also bland and the reasons why she does things make no sense. 

Sonny (The robot in question.) is also lame he does what the plot needs him to do. That's a shame because the movie could have done more with him. 

I like that the movie introduces ideas if only things were done with them. The film has its moments of humor. Overall, this movie is not underrated to me. It's fine as an action film but not as an adaptation. 

Rating = Rental             

My review of the Transformers cartoons

My review of the Transformers cartoons

 

Prologue: To celebrate the 30th anniversary of this franchise, I decided to review the cartoons that I've seen. I might review the other Transformers cartoons, then again, what can I say about the Unicron Trilogy that's already been said? For those of you who don't know, Transformers is based on three different toy lines from Japan; a company called Hasbro has brought them to the U.S. Due to that, Transformers has become a well-known franchise with cartoons, movies, comic books, and video games. 

Intro: A cartoon about robots transforming into motor vehicles, I can see why this was popular in the '80s, unlike the Ninja Turtles. I'm just kidding. 

Transformers G1: This series is centered on a group of robots called Autobots from the planet Cybertron. They're looking for a power source to keep their plant stable, so they travel in space to find one. Meanwhile, another group of robots called the Decepticons ambushes them, which cause both groups to crash land on Earth four million years in the past. When they are revived in the present day, they see that Earth has plenty of resources to stabilize Cybertron, so both groups fight each other for them.

Despite this cartoon being a toy commercial, it’s not bad. I don’t mind watching this if it were on TV. I appreciate that this series isn’t repetitive, I mean, not every episode is about the two robot groups looking for Energon. This show has episodes that deal with propaganda, religion, foreshadow how bad Mr. Bay’s Transformers movies are going to be, an episode for GI Joe fans, and an episode where the Decepticons got drunk. How the creators got away with that is beyond me. The jokes in this series are not cheesy, unlike Power Rangers; however, they feel dated. I don’t get why fans are annoyed with the human characters. They help the Autobots fight the Decepticons so what’s the problem?  

Let’s talk about the Autobots

Ironhide is a hothead.

Ratchet is the team’s medical officer.

Wheeljack is one of the smartest Autobots. Sometimes his inventions bites him in the rear.

Jazz is the cool one who’s into music.

Bumblebee is the youngest and one of the smallest Autobots. I don't get why he's a fan favorite. 

The Dinobots are the Autobot's muscle.

Optimus Prime is the leader of the Autobots and not a good one. He plays favorites, makes decisions that endanger the Autobots, and when one of them wants to quit, he doesn’t encourage him to stay. In the tie-in movie, he lost Earth to the Decepticons. Congratulation Optimus! Not only are you a bad leader, but the dumbest character on this show. How can Optimus lose Earth to the Decepticons when he has more manpower? ( I'm not saying it's not possible however, it still makes him look bad.) Would fans please explain to me why they (My editor censors what I'm saying to avoid me spoiling anything.) in the movie? It hurts me to say that because he does have moments where he shines; however, they are overshadowed by the things I mentioned.

Ultra Magnus is second in command of the Autobots. Wait! I thought Ironhide was Optimus's right-hand man, and Ultra Magnus is the voice of reason. I would like to know why he didn't show up sooner? 

Hot Rod is Brash and headstrong. I like this character even though he rubs fans the wrong way. The reason why I'm fond of him is that he's the only character who has a character arc, as far as I know. 

Arcee is kind and caring. 

Spike (one of the human allies) is a typical boy.

I don’t have much to say about Sparkplug (Spike’s father) He helps repair the Autobots.

Chip is the bright human ally. The only complaint I have with him is that we don’t know what happened to him after season two? 

Now let’s talk about the Decepticons, who are the villains.

Shockwave is the guardian of Cybertron. He’s a loyal follower of Megatron.

Speaking of Megatron (leader of the Decepticons), he's a tyrant. My beef with him is that he doesn’t do much about Starscream undermining him, which ends up biting him in the butt in the movie. Also, his plans fail because he tries to multitask, and he's not good at it. Do I really have to explain why I don't like that he can transform into a gun of all things!?!  

I can see why Starscream is a fan favorite because he's the only Decepticon that stood out. (Besides Soundwave.) He may be a backstabber, but he’s ambitious. There's one episode where he came close to defeating Optimus by himself. I wish I knew why he doesn’t trust Megatron. I mean, Megatron’s plans would have worked if it weren’t for him.

Soundwave is Megatron’s adviser, and he’s arguably the most powerful Decepticon.

Galvatron is a raging madman. 

The Quintesson are manipulative; they have a history with the Autobots and Decepticons. 

One of my many problems with this cartoon is that there are too many characters; heck, all of them didn’t show up in the movie. Also, the writer could have done a better job at introducing us to these new characters. Do I really have to comment on the editing and plot holes? This series is inconsistent with the continuity this series establishes. Season 4 only has three episodes, why!?! I’m not crazy about female Autobots. We learn that new robots are created by other means, so what’s the point of having them if they don’t reproduce new life? I’m annoyed that the creators brought back a character that died in the movie, all because kids can’t deal with disappointments. (Thanks a lot, parents! If I’m wrong about why the writers brought this character back, then I stand corrected.)   

Overall, this is a solid cartoon that I think holds up fine. I would recommend this if you like cars and robots.  

  

Intro: So we have a Transformers series where the Transformers use animals to disguise their robot forms. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Beast Wars: This series takes place centuries after the events of G1, the Maximals (descendants of the Autobots) and the Predacons (descendants of the Decepticons) live in peace on Cybertron since then. One day, the Predacons steal a valuable object, and the Maximals have to catch them. During their pursuit, they crash land on an unknown planet that has what the Predacons want, and that’s Energon, so the Maximals have to stop them from getting it and get off the planet. 

The premise may sound similar to Transformers G1, but it’s a step up from that. This show isn’t flooded with too many characters, and they have to deal with aliens. I like how the story progresses, and I’m impressed with how this series connects to G1. The CGI was impressive at the time, but now it’s dated. I’m shocked at how this series got away with innuendos. I appreciate that we have two episodes that show that the Maximals are not so noble. 

Let’s talk about the Maximals

Optimus Primal is a by-the-book leader. What bugs me about him is that he only got one focus episode, and that's not enough to get inside this character's head. 

Rhinox is the brains of the team and second in command. He also keeps the team level-headed.

Rattrap is the comic relief. He does the spy work for the team.

Cheetor is the youngest member of the team. His overconfidence, impulsive, and kiss-up to Optimus, I mean, look up to him. I'm fond of the character development he has in this series.

Dinobot is a Predacon who joins the Maximals because he feels betrayed by Megatron. He's ruthless and honorable. He creates an interesting dynamic for the Maximals, he second-guesses Optimus, and has a love-hate relationship with Rattrap. (To be fair, Rattrap can be annoying.) Also, he’s torn between the Maximals and Predacons as far as loyalty.

Silverbolt cracks me up because of how cheesy he is. I mean, he screams 1950s Superman.

Tigertron is a passive.

Now to the Predacons 

Megatron is hard for me to take seriously because of how goofy he is; he’s not a clown; however, he doesn’t feel threatening. He's fond of Dinobot. You’ll see what I mean when you watch this series.

Waspinator is a walking punching bag because of that. I feel sorry for him. I’m surprised that he didn’t betray Megatron, I mean, he had every reason to. It's hard to find that kind of obedience. 

Tarantulas is the bright one on his team.

Blackarachnia is smart in her own right and manipulative. 

Inferno is loyal. I’m surprised that no one fixed his programming.

Rampage is the muscle.

The biggest problem I have with this show is killing off characters. I don’t have an issue with it; it’s how it was done that is the issue. Considering the type of damage the transformers take in this series, it’s hard to tell what can or can't kill them; also, some of it was played for laughs, which makes it worse. The Predacons are another gripe I have with this series; most of them are like Starscream in their own way. The writers could have handled the plot twist in season two a lot better. The comedy can be a bit much. Season one is the weakest season out of the three because it doesn't have much of a story beyond the aliens subplot. This series did something that undermines one of the best episodes in this series. 

All in all, this is a good follow-up to G1 with better writing, characterization, and animation.  

       

Intro: Fans are right, this is the worst Transformers cartoon! What? I smiled? Darn it! I can’t say that with a straight face.  

Beast Machines: Six of the surviving Maximals return to Cybertron after the Beast Wars. Instead of getting a warm welcome, they're being hunted, they have no memory of what happened when they got there, two of them are missing, and they're dying from a virus. After being cured of the virus, they learn that Cybertron is under Megatron’s control, so the Maximals have to find their missing allies and free Cybertron from Megatron's reign.

Despite this series being underrated, I can see why fans despise it; it’s a far cry from Beast Wars as far as story, characters, and tone. This feels like an original show, but the creators put Transformers in the title so more kids can watch it. That’s understandable, I would have done the same thing. If you can look past that, this is a sequel to Beast Wars; you’ll see that this is a fine show. I like that this series has a dark story and the mysteries in this series, because doing these things gives us something different. I appreciate that Beast Wars has pay-off in this series, and it connects two of the previous series. I’m fond of how these series handle the themes they are collectivism vs free will, technology vs nature.

Optimus Primal is a mass; his ability to lead is compromised by his guilt over losing Cyberton to Megatron. Thankfully, he got over that in time, and he's more of a spiritual leader.

Cheetor is second in command and the voice of reason of the Maximals.

Rattrap is R2-D2, I mean, he fills in Rhinox’s spot on the team as far as being an inventor. My beef with him is that he lost his sense of humor; all he does is complain more than usual. Rattrap losing his ability to fight is not a big issue for me because... 

 look at him, what threat does he pose? 

    

Blackarachnia doesn’t serve much of a purpose in this series; all she does is look for one of her allies. What happened to her intelligence?

Silverbolt is the opposite of what he was in Beast Wars. To the fans who have a problem with this, let me ask you this. Do you like Batman more than Superman? If the answer is yes, then you have nothing to whine about.

Nightscream is a loner who warms up to the Maximals over time. I don’t get why fans don’t like him.    

Botanica is a scientist and passive. What annoys me about her, besides her being a transforming plant ( I wish I was high so that I could make up what I just said), is that she showed up towards the end of the series.  

Now to the villains

Megatron is more menacing than he was in Beast Wars. I don’t buy his disgust for organics.  

Jetstorm (one of Megatron’s generals) is Mr. Personality. However, he wasn't funny enough to balance the dark tone in this series. 

Tankor is like the Hulk as far as all muscles and no brains. I'm not crazy about what was done with him later on.

Thrust is cool.

My grievances with this series are that you really have to suspend your disbelief. Also, the conflict between the Maximals and Megatron is contrived; the reason why the Maximals want to bring organics to Cybertron is because the Oracle told them to. No one is going to second-guess it? Also, I’m not crazy about the designs of the technorganics; they're all over the place. This makes me want to cheer for Megatron. Plus, there's no evidence that Cybertron can support organic life and plot holes with the virus. I wish this series had done more with Cybertron.   

This may not be a good entry to the Transforms franchise, but it's a good series. I would recommend that fans give it a second viewing.  

      

Intro: WOW! Where was this level of writing when the writers were working on the Transformers movies? That’s right, the writers of this show are the same ones who wrote the Transformers movies. Either they were slacking off or they were on meth.

Transformers Prime: This series is about a group of Autobots arriving on Earth because their home planet, Cybertron, is a wasteland due to the war. They manage to keep a low profile until three kids notice them, and the Decepticons leader, Megatron, shows up. So the Autobots and Decepticons continue their war on Earth.

This series blew me away! I’m fond of the mature tone, how this show handles references to past cartoons, the creators humanize the Transformers, and the explanation of why they're on Earth. This series introduces a different kind of energon that can revive the dead. Speaking of deaths, I’m happy that characters stay dead for the most part. I appreciate that one of the Autobots died at the beginning, and the Decepticons outnumbered them 100 to 1, because this helps build suspects. (Plus, they have to deal with human threats.) Do I really have to mention how good the GCI looks? 

Let's talk about the characters

Bulkhead is friendly, lovable, and childish. 

WheelJack is like Jazz from G1 instead of what he was in G1, and he’s Blukhead’s best friend.

Ratchet is a cranky doctor and scientist.

Arcee is a lone wolf to the point where she disobeys Optimus's orders. (I'm surprised that Optimus didn't bench her from the field.) She's like this because of the trauma she when through. 

Bumblebee is the scout of the team, playful and the most developed character in this series. My gripe with him is that I wish I knew what he’s saying.

Smokescreen is arrogant in an ambitious way. He later learns humility and working with others.

Ultra Magnus is the strict second in command. There is one episode that addresses how his strictness affects the team, but nothing much comes from it.   

Optimus Prime may seem like a flat character as far as being righteous, but he isn’t; there are times where his principles are challenged. What this series did with Optimus is what I expect Superman to be in Man of Steel. Am I the only one annoyed with him being a hypocrite? I mean, he tells his team to not engage the enemy alone, but he faces Megatron alone; some explain he's setting.      

Jack (one of the human allies) is the mature one and a reluctant hero. The subplot with the girl he has a crush on went nowhere. 

Miko is a reckless tomboy.

Rafael is a tech genius.  

Agent Fowler helps provide cover and assistance for the Autobots. Despite being frustrated with them doing things to blow their cover, he’s thankful for them. Also, he says some funny things from time to time. 

Now to the Decepticons

Airachnid is sick, I mean, you have to be if you enjoy hurting people in every way, shape, or form. Also, she has a rivalry with Arcee.

Predaking is the muscle with an ego. Also, how he treats Starscream is messed up. 

Dreadwing is the honorable one kind of.

Starscream may come off as the same character as his G1 counterpart, but he isn't. Sorry, I can't get into detail without spoiling anything. Heck, you kind of feel sorry for him because of how Megatron treats him. I wish the writers would come up with a better story for him; however, that would be tricky to do without repeating what Transformers Armada did with this character. 

Knock Out is the Deceptions doctor, and he's very vain. He values his looks above everything else. What bugs me about him is that he could be fruity. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anyone like that; however, I don't see the point of having someone like that on the show. 

Breakdown is like Bulkhead, but he isn't immature. It's hard for me to consider him a deception because he doesn't do anything wrong besides property damage. I'm having a hard time believing Bulkhead when he said he did terrible things because they have a playful rivalry. My beef with this character is that he's wasted, I mean, the creator could have done more with him.   

   

Soundwave is the communication chief, that's saying a lot because he’s the strong, silent type.

Shockwave is the smart one of the Decepticons, and he’s level-headed.

Megatron is ruthless, cruel, and egotistical. I can see why he tolerates Starscream because Starscream is a toothpick compared to him. What bothers me about him is his revelations, which make him look stupid. Also, the war could have ended sooner if he wasn't obsessed with killing Optimus himself.   

One of the many problems I have with this series is the dynamic between Optimus and Megatron; it’s becoming a cliché now. I also have issues with the plot holes, like how did things from Cybertron end up on Earth? The direct-to-video movie didn't tie up loose ends. I was let down that this show didn't go in the direction I thought it was going to go in season three. It would be interesting to see what kind of story the writers could tell if they did go in that direction. I'm annoyed that we don't have any episodes focused on what Cybertron was like before and during the war, because when we learn about the past, it makes you want to see it. 

Overall, this is one of the best Transformers cartoons that deserves all the Emmy Awards it won. If you want to see a more serious Transformers show, then this is for you.  

My rant about Father's Day

My rant about Father's Day

Three years ago, I saw something disturbing and that is Hallmark made Father’s Day cards for Mother’s. I am not kidding about that, I post one of them on this post. These cards are mainly for Black mothers, they clearly don’t have a problem with it because I haven’t seen any news report where they're outraged with Hallmark for making these cards. Not only that they take Father's day off from work the nerve. So, let me get this straight you want to be honored for not picking the right man to be your kid's father and screwing up your community? That’s what you're doing! 

I don’t get it why do women associate themselves with guy things? If a Caucasian women get tattoos she’s called a biker chick, but when a Black woman gets them, she's still considered a queen no matter what she does. How many times do I have to tell you ladies you can’t be both a Mother and a Father to your kids, it’s not possible because doing that ruins your image as a mother. Mothers are suppose to be loving and Fathers are suppose to be stern. I'm not saying mothers can't be stern, but you don't want to come off as masculine. When you do your son won't see you as a lady. If you don't want to be in a domestic violence situation with your son or want your son to turn his back on you, I would tread lightly when it comes to that. 

Also, mothers can't give their sons confirmation that their becoming men, the only thing they can do (besides giving him responsibilities.) is raise them to be the type of men they and other women would date. Sadly, American women are terrible at that because they don't value character. We all know nine times out of ten women want a man that's in shape and has money. How many of you are getting your sons memberships to the YMCA and books on economics instead of buying him Jordan's? If your son's father is a bum or criminal then you have no business telling him to be nice to women because that didn't turn you on. How do you expect your son to be the kind of man that he doesn't see and you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole if his father is not like that? Look at the stats 78% of men that are in jail are from a single-parent household. It doesn't matter if these kids are born in poverty or not money doesn't substitute parents. You know what having kids without a man around should be considered child neglect, I mean it’s not fair that kids have to grow up with no father around. 

Who's going to warn your son about the disadvantages he's going to have for being a man, heck being raised in a single-parent household is a disadvantage. I mean how are mothers going to help their sons with guys' stuff if they can't or won't do those things? For example, If I ask boys to build something out of Legos or create a map in Halo, I bet you nine times out of ten they will have a hard time with that. Also, they will pick up on feminine features, for example, how do you expect your son to take out the trash if you think it's disgusting? Also, whenever your son shows signs of masculinity you frown upon it. For example, how many men don't like the idea of having a gun in the house because of their mother? Since we're on the subject of guns how do single mothers expect to protect their kids if they don't want to carry any weapons? 

I have mixed feelings about my father not being in my life, on one hand, I wish he was around and on the other hand, I'm kind of glad he isn't. What's the point of having a father if our competitive nature will come between us? This is why boys and men are more rebellious because we are not followers. For the most part, we follow not because we trust who's in charge, it's because we can't overthrow who's in charge. Fathers are not excluded from this; domestic violence wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case. If you are not OK with your son turning his back on your or leaving you for dead, then we have to do a better job finding a middle ground.       

Also, I'm having a hard time resolving my differences with my mother, I will have a harder time with him because like I said fathers are stern. I understand fathers represent structure and discipline however that shouldn't be the only impression we have of them. Fathers have to reinsure that their sons still matter to them even when they are mad or disappointed with them. How can I show compassion for my fellow man if my father can't do that for me? 

This is a problem I have with my rageaholic uncle he's such a hothead to the point where I don't want to be around him. I don't expect him to put up my father's slack however he has the same responsibility as far as reinforcing the family structure. For example, both the father and uncle greet the mom with hugs and kisses, but they do it for different reasons. The father does it to show you how to treat your wife when you get married, when the uncle does it, he's showing you what loving siblings should look like. I don't recall my uncle being chummy with my mom, if he was, he didn't do it enough.  

How can I see my father as a hero, want to play catch with him, go fishing or to a football game if I don't trust him or am ashamed to be his son? Despite making a big deal about fathers there's no guarantee that things will be better for your kids if he's around. To parents who have more than one child do they all turn out the same? If the answer is no, then that's my point. Another example I've seen and heard stories of Pastor's daughters and church women having eyes for the type of boys or men who are nothing like their father. Don't get me started on girls who grow up catholic. If my father gives me the birds and bees talk, I won't be able to take him seriously because he's getting his needs met so he lost his credibility with me. 

We don't need single mothers to discredit fathers we do a fine job of that ourselves. I mean we don't reinforce or value what fathers represent. Look and Caucasian people for example, they don't take responsibility for all the crap they put Black people through during and after slavery. Does that sound like they had fathers in their lives? Hulk Hogan's son was arrested for reckless driving and Hulk Hogan beg the court to show his son mercy. If I was him, I would tell his son you made your bed you lie in it. What's the point of fathers giving kids structure and discipline if they're not consistent about it or the kids don't internalize it? Whenever a man abuses his power or gets in trouble with the law, how often do you hear them say I was wrong and I accept the consequences for my actions? I'm grateful that we don't live in a time where you have to do dangerous things to prove your manhood, like hunting or fighting a battle. Don't get me wrong I know that's considered a rite of passage however you can't have it both ways. You can't put your son in a dangerous situation and act like you have a bleeding heart when he suffers PTSD from it.        

The relationship between the mother and her son can be sick without the father. Mothers will view their sons in ways she views a husband, as far as expecting their sons to take care and protect their mothers. Doing that will put her son in a position where he oversteps his boundaries as a son and the mother will overstep his boundaries as a mother. I'm not saying sons shouldn't take care of their mothers however there should be a limit. For example, I told my mother if I become famous don't expect me to buy you a new house, car or move you to a nice arena. I might buy her a bag of skittles if I'm generous. This isn't about me not loving my mom I want to move on with my life I can't do that if I'm worried about every little problem she has. It's not my fault my mother doesn't have a retirement plan or a 401k so why should it be my burden? Another thing mothers do that can hurt the relationship between father and son is putting him in his father's shadow. 

As far as stepfathers go, Men need to stop discouraging each other from wanting to be stepfathers. I know being a stepfather comes with a lot of baggage but there is something that no one is considering. Would you rather someone take care of a woman's bastard kids instead of your tax dollars? I don't think single mothers who are widows should deal with the stigma of being single mothers because they didn't ask to be single mothers. Being a stepfather would have been better if the man that the mother is seeing wins the kids over, the mother talks to her kids about the man she's seeing becoming a father figure in his life and reinsure them that he won't come between them. 

My point is kids will have a better chance at reach their full potential if both parents are around. The media knows this without the father boys become a handful and looking for a sense of identity. We see that in Star Wars, Batman Begins, the recent Spider-Man films and T2. Because of that boys and men from single-parent homes won't be respected by those who have both parents because they can't compete with them. Also, why should we feel sorry for single mothers for choosing to be single? I hear single mothers complaining about how hard it is to do everything on their own, again why should we feel sorry for you? Last I checked there are many forms of birth control for women so what's the problem? You made your bed now sleep in it. Another thing if you keep the father away from his kids and your kids are giving you grief don't come crying to me or anyone else for that matter. I see that as karma what made you think you can remove the man from the family and not expect anything in return?  

Sadly, fathers don’t get honored as much as mothers. The only reason women have this I raise my kids by myself mentality is that they got assists. You don't hear single fathers talking about how they have to be a mother to their daughters because we can't and we don't want to be that. I bet they would stop having that mindset if we lived in a primitive society where you have to hunt for food because no woman wants to do that. If you didn't pick the right guy to be a father, then at least get him into sports or sent him to boarding school. A coach can help fill that void to a degree. You know what I’m going to give you one reason why kids must be around their father that reason is the family tree, I mean how can a child know or learn about him or herself if kids don’t know their family history? How can someone know their history if they don’t know their family? Love is another reason, men love differently than women. 

The bottom line is being a single parent doesn't give you an advantage, kids need their fathers just as much as their mothers.

 

My rant about Brotherhood

My rant about Brotherhood

Men we have a problem there is something that's keeping us from uniting (Besides our competitive nature.) and that is the affection of a woman. That’s right we put sex on a pedestal, don’t look at me like I’m crazy if you’re spending money on Playboy magazines and on strip clubs that’s what you’re doing. If that's not true then why do we brag about getting with the hottest woman and make fun of men who are virgins? I don’t know about you but I’m tired of seeing and hearing stories of best friends fighting over sleeping with each other's mom, brothers fighting over a girl. Fathers and sons fight or kill each other over the stepmom. The same thing goes for men wanting to beat up the man his wife or girlfriend cheated on him with. 

Here are some examples. 

I can’t believe we're doing this to each other over a woman. Seriously what happen to the bro code? If you're going to fight over a woman you should at least eat spinach. ( Do you know how sad it is that no one will understand that reference?) What makes this worse is that older men who are 45 or 55 are getting with 25-year-old women. I understand them wanting to hook up with a younger woman but dating and marrying them really? Would you look at a grown man funny if he ordered a happy meal at Mickey D's or playing in the kid's sandbox? If the answer is yes, then you should feel dirty getting with a woman that's the same age as your daughter. You don't think you're stepping on young men's toes by getting involved with women their age? You can hide behind 25 is not a minor technicality all you want that doesn't change the fact that it makes you look bad. Also, would you be OK with your nineteen-year-old daughter bringing home a man who's in his 40's or 50's? If the answer is no, then you shouldn't entertain the idea of getting with younger women. 

I know men want certain sexual experiences like having sex with virgins and older women because it's considered a rite of passage. However, this is something you should have done in your late teens and early twenties because women are not saving themselves for marriage these days. Getting with a woman who had many sexual partners can make you look bad. For example, let's say you met one of her exes and he asks does she still taste like Mango? How do you respond to that? When a woman turns 35, she's passed her prime. Yes! She can still look good at that age but that won't stop her from developing bad plumbing. When it comes to older women, I have limits I mean I don't mess with women who are ten years or older than my senior. 

With a few exceptions.   

Despite women outnumbering men, a lot of guys won't experience those things because they're too busy with college, girls getting knocked up at sixteen and women wanting a man who's established. This is why they are drawn to men who are 45 or 55 because that's the average age where a man peaks financially. To the men who make fun of other men who are virgins, you need to stop that because it's making you look bad. Do you want to marry a woman who's either a virgin or hasn't been with a lot of men? If the answer is yes, then how do expect to find a woman like that when you demonize men for not sleeping with random women? How can men be a womanizer if your daughter can't be a part of that? 

Pastors you need to do a better job talking to your congregation about sex if you don't want your church turned into a place where you can smash and dash. I say that because the church is the best place to find virgins. If you don't have a singles ministry, you better start one. Saving yourselves for marriage is unrealistic, I mean can you fast for years without food? If the answer is no, then that's my point. Also, sex toys would be enough and prison rape wouldn't exist if that was the case. (If you think every man in prison is gay, you're an idiot.) Sex is a biological and psychological need, you have to show your congregation some compassion when it comes to that. They should at least get a little foreplay if they have to wait years to get married.  

Women play a role in us fighting over them by not stroking the egos of productive men. If you have a reputation of dating nonproductive men, then that's what I'm talking about. Men have egos about the type of women they should get when they don't it hurts them. Would you be outraged if you didn't get a gold medal for putting on a gold medal performance at the Olympics? If the answer is yes that's how productive men feel when they don't get the type of women that bums and criminals get. If men who are doctors, lawyers and engineers don't deserve women who are drop-dead gorgeous who does? This is why men fight each other and have crimes of passion because no one enjoys paying more for less.

Women also put us in danger by treating us like her personal attack dogs. They do this by having us think were defending their honor with proxy violence. I'm not saying men shouldn't defend the honor of the women in their lives; however, if you are willing to hurt or kill someone without knowing if the situation was a misunderstanding or she's exaggerating, that shows how little we love each other. I know men don't value love, but you can't have it both ways. We can't complain about how society disregards us when we have no problem shedding the blood of our fellow man unless it's justified.              

Another way women are part of the problem is that they love to play stupid. Ladies you're going to have a hard time finding a man that doesn't want to nail you to the wall if you don't want a man like that then date a monk. This is why you have male friends, I mean they're hoping that they'll get laid or be your main squeeze over time. Don't take my word for it call him over to your house and throw yourselves at him and see what happens. Also, I shouldn’t feel like I’m walking on eggshells when I’m around a couple. I know you have to behave in a certain way where you don’t offend the Husband or boyfriend however, we don’t know what is or isn’t appropriate behavior. For example, I’m not going to be outraged with a man from Francis if he kisses both sides of my wife’s cheeks because I know that’s how they greet each other in Francis.   

Just because that’s the custom in Francis that doesn’t mean you have to be OK with it if you’re not. That’s my point just because one man is OK with you being friendly with his woman that doesn’t mean everyone else will, it’s hard to tell what’s acceptable or not if it’s not universal. If my wife accepts jewelry from a man, I will be upset with her because she’s not respecting our marriage by doing that. Really you need to have a better attitude about people hitting on your girlfriend or wife. I'm not saying that you should be happy about that however when you want to beat up anyone who does that what does that say about you? 

That kind of reaction tells me that you don’t think highly of yourself and you don’t trust your spouse. People are going to flirt with your girlfriend or wife regardless, if you think highly of yourself, you wouldn’t feel threatened by other people coming on to her. Would you feel sorry for a billionaire who gets attention from people who try to con him or her out of their money? If the answer is no, then how is this any different? You can’t get with a woman that most men find attractive and not expect other men to eyeball her. If you don’t trust her because she, did you wrong in the past then you should break it off, I know that’s hard if you two have history but trying to have a relationship with anyone that you don’t trust is harder. Sidenote when you give someone a second chance you lost the right to bring up what he or she did in the past.

Men we need to wake up and realize that women don’t have our best interest in mind heck they don’t even love us. Don’t believe me, there was a news report early this year about a man in Texas being put in jail for overpaying child support and women were not outraged by that why is that? Since we're on the subject of child support how is a man paying child support going to help better his relationship with his kids? Also, have you noticed that women say that he needs to pay child support instead of I need him to be a father to his kids? 

Here’s another example of what I’m talking about.



Do you see how women do us wrong? This woman said that her friends told her to trick her husband, the man she promise to love, honor and cherish. This woman needs better friends! I shouldn’t be surprised that Mrs. Williams and the audience are encouraging this nonsense, the women that didn’t clap didn’t condemn the other women. Yes! The Husband went back on his promise but that’s no excuse to trick him. Wait why is the wife talking to Mrs. Williams about having another kid? Why isn’t she talking to her Husband about this, hack Mrs. Williams didn’t even ask why her husband broke his promise? OK ladies since you don’t have an issue with this then you shouldn’t have a problem with Dr. Phil doing this.

A boy: Hey Dr. Phil I have been seeing this girl for 9 months now and we haven’t had sex yet. What should I do?

Dr. Phil: It’s simple force her to have sex with you, put roofies in her drink or stick a gun to her face.

I better not see women being outraged about this. Before I move on what was that thing Mrs. Williams said men have never been in control of our bodies. Then why do men have to pay for the choices you make moron!?! Ladies if you love your male counterpart then you should have no issue with doing the following.

Make a big deal about Prostate cancer, buy men gifts on Valentine Day, condemn women for falsely accusing men of crimes they didn’t commit, women taking money from a man to the point that he lives in a hotel, women abusing their power towards men, condemn Army wives for being so causal with cheating on their Husbands and women keeping their sons away from their father. Side note I kind of feel bad for Soldiers, I mean they have to come home to find out their wife is cheating on them after being mentally or physically scarred what up with that? Also, I’m surprised that no one is blaming Army wives for ruing the foundation of marriage instead of blaming Homosexuals, like I said before they seem casual with cheating on their Husbands.

There is a scene in one of the Saw films where a woman and two men that she was seeing were in a death trap, so the woman tried to convince one of the men to sacrifice themselves for her. Do you know what happened next the men sacrifice her instead of themselves. Men this is what we need to start doing, I don’t mean kill women I mean we need to let women know that you're not going to come between us. Like I said before we have to stop letting women manipulate us with their feminine wiles.


My editor: That’s hard to do.

What do you mean it’s hard? I manage to stay away from anything that reminds me of sex. That strategy is working for me kind of, I don’t buy playboy magazines or spend my money on strip clubs. Sidenote I can't believe strip clubs are a thing I mean what's the point of going there, having strippers giving you blue balls if we can't hook up? I haven’t been to the beach in twelve years and I stay inside the house during the spring and summertime. Another thing when I was in the job development program, I told them if I’m going to work with women, they have to be old enough to be my mother. 

The bottom line is we have to look out for each other and stick together. One more thing ladies if you love the men in your life then you should treat them like they’re dying. Because that’s what society is doing to men, they're killing us mentally we don't need to come home and deal with that.

My review of X-Men Days of Future Past

My review of X-Men Days of Future Past

 

Intro: Mr. Ratner you should be thanking Mr. Singer for cleaning up your mess because this movie is the only thing that's keeping the fans from giving you the beating you deserve. I mean asking for.

X-Men Days of Future Past: This movie takes place in the year 2023 a group of machines called Sentinel are hunting and killing both humans and mutants. In order to stop them and prevent this ordeal from happening again, the X-Men decided to send Wolverine back to the year 1973 to stop the Sentinel from being created. 

I have mixed feelings about this movie, I did enjoy it however something about it feels off. I appreciate that this movie tried to connect with First Class and the other X-Men films. You can see how characters influence each other in this film. I’m not going to compare this movie to The Terminator because everyone else has already done that. Also, the comic book that this movie is based on came out before the Terminator. I like the Sentinels in this movie because they're more dangerous than they were in the comics. This movie is as entertaining as First Class. I'm glad the director didn’t go back and forth from the future to the past.  

QuickSilver is cool, funny, and clever. There is a scene in the movie we he steals the show. What bugs me about him is that he's barely in the movie. 

Bolivar Trask is the man who created the Sentinel. It's hard to see him as the villain I mean he's only doing this to protect humans from mutants that could be dangerous, I can't fault the man for having forethought. 

Mystique gets to stand on her own two feet in this movie, she's almost like her comic book counterpart. You kind of feel sorry for her because she feels like she's being controlled by everyone. 

Prof. Xavier is a far cry from what he was in first class because of the events that happened in 1973. 

Logan/Wolverine has to guide Prof. Xavier out of his broken state of mind. 

Kitty Pryde has a bigger role than she did in the last stand.     

One of the problems I have with this movie is the plot holes, that's funny because this movie was suppose to fix those issues. Here’s an example of one of the plot holes, if the Sentinel have been around since the 1970’s why haven’t we seen them in the earlier films or why haven't the Sentinel been referenced beforehand? Also, this movie removes characters without telling us what happened to them? You might be annoyed with how this movie introduces new characters, I say that because we don't know who they are and how long they've been part of the X-Men? 

I wish the brotherhood was in this movie to add more conflict. This movie feels more like a sequel to First Class than X-Men The Last Stand, I wish there were more scenes of the future. Well to be fair making a movie like this is tricky. The way this movie ended bothers me because this ending would have been a fine ending to this franchise if this was the last movie in this franchise. A minor complaint I have with the film is the score, the movie uses the same score from X2. 

I wish I can say that this is the best X-Men movie however my gripes and exceptions for this movie keep me from saying that. This film would have been better if it was split into two films. I would recommend this movie if you like time travel films.

Rating = Average

Arrow season two review

Arrow season two review



Intro: If you didn't like the you have failed this city line or think it's overused, don't worry, you’ll only hear it twice in this season. 

Arrow Season Two: This season takes place five months after Oliver/The Arrow failed to stop Malcolm Merlyn/ the dark archer from destroying the Glades, the Glades is the worst part of Starling City. The shame of his failure, plus the death of Tommy (His best friend), causes Oliver Queen/The Arrow to leave Starling City. After he's informed that things in Starling City have gotten worse, his family and the family business are in trouble, he returns to Starling City to try and fix things. Meanwhile, someone from Oliver’s past has come to Starling City to turn his world into ashes. So Oliver has to stop this person, plus deal with a family secret that could tear his family apart. 

This is a good follow-up season that builds off the previous one. Mr. Nolan needs to take notes because this season borrowed elements from The Dark Knight Rises and does them better. For example, how the main villain was handled in this season is what I expect from Bane in Rises. None of the episodes are bad, well, episodes 10 and 17 are the weakest episodes to me. This season feels like fan service because it gave almost everyone what they wanted. I'm impressed that the creators didn't drag out the story; however, I wish they would save it for next season. The themes of this season are the same as last season; they are family and redemption. The first episode should have been a two-part episode because Oliver becoming the vigilante again seemed rushed to me. 

I also like the flashbacks because the flashbacks to the island connect to what’s happening now. The flashbacks are about a Doctor name Dr. Ivo, who's looking for a serum that can heal any injury and cure any disease. Dr. Ivo didn't make the best first impression on Oliver because he tried to kill him and his allies, looking for it, so Oliver and the others have to find it before he does. The issue I have with the flashbacks is the dynamic between Oliver and his allies. The reason why this is an issue is that I'm having a hard time buying it for reasons I can't get into without spoiling anything. Also, Oliver tells us what happened on the island before or after we see the event happen. Doing that undermines the flashbacks. What's the point of watching them if Oliver is going to tell us what happened? 

I'm fond of the two arcs Oliver Queen/The Arrow have this season. The first arc is him changing his image as the vigilante, the second arc is him learning how to forgive himself for what he did on the island. I'm annoyed that Oliver didn't use his hit list because I suspect that the writers might go back to that list in the future. I also think it's funny that he didn't use that list because one of the new characters name is on that list. My beef with Oliver/The Arrow is that he turns into Pinocchio; you'll see what I mean when you watch this season. I was also annoyed to see where Oliver went when the Glades was destroyed. I hope that has some payoff in the future.    

I like Roy Harper more than I did last season because he's trying to do better, and he treats Thea better. I also appreciate what this show has done with him; however, I was let down by how it played out. The gripe I had with Roy last season was that we don’t know much about him, and we still don’t know anything about him.

I feel sorry for Thea Queen because she's in a good place mentally, and things happen that ruin it. Also, she's less annoying than she was last season. 

If you didn’t love Laurel Lance last season, you’re not going to love her this season, for the most part. Sorry! I can't get into details without spoiling anything. It seems like the writers don't know what to do with her. I understand what the showrunners are trying to do with her; however, it could have been done better. Also, is it me, or does the actress who plays Laurel look like she had a facelift, or is it the makeup?       

I still despise Oliver’s mother, Moira Queen, because she still hasn’t learned her lesson; well, she redeemed herself towards the end.  

John Diggle is more or less the same character from last season; his subplot from last season continues into this season. 

I don't have much to say about Felicity Smoak because this season hasn't done anything new with her besides her drooling over Oliver more than she did last season. I don't understand why she does that. I mean, I get that she finds him attractive, but she isn't bothered by the fact that he used to be a Playboy and drop bodies? Plus, Oliver showed no interest in her besides feeling jealous when she had eyes for someone else. However, she has her moments where she can be frustrating.  

Off. Lance is more helpful with The Arrow than he was in the previous season. Also, his attitude towards him has changed, and we get to see their relationship grow. 

Isabel Rochev (Oliver's business partner) is all work and no play. That's a shame because we had an episode where she lightened up a bit. I wish this season didn't foreshadow what it will do with this character.    

Sebastian Blood ( one of the baddies) is a cult leader who's also the voice of the victims of the Glades. He wants to fix the city at the cost of bloodshed, which wasn't intended to be a pun. His backstory is tragic; however, it doesn't make him sympathetic. What bothers me about him, besides the fact that he can't put two and two together, is that I wish he was the main villain, because it would be interesting to see Oliver go up against someone popular with the general public. Also, is it me, or does his mask look like Scarecrow's mask from Batman Begins?   
       
Deathstroke ( the main villain) is a good adversary because he keeps outsmarting Oliver. It makes you question how Oliver is going to stop this guy, or can he stop this person? My beef with him is that his motivation is weak, plus it makes him look crazy. 

This season has done two things that almost made me not want to watch this series. The first thing is bringing back two characters that we thought were dead. The first character the creators brought back from the dead didn’t bother me that much because I had a feeling this character wasn’t really dead. What angers me about this character is what was done to this person. I'm going to leave it at that. The second character this show brought back really bugs me because bringing back characters that either died or were removed just disarms what happens in previous events. I’m getting tired of saying that, if you kill off a character, keep that character dead! Also, I don’t buy the big reveal involving this character. 

Another thing that bothers me about this season is that it was setting up the DC Universe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this, it's just that the creators were not subtle about it. Plus, the writers are limiting themselves to a realistic or serious tone. Introducing comic book characters could overwhelm Oliver, I mean, he's just a guy with a Bow and Arrow. Judging by the first four episodes of this season, I thought this show was going to do a No Man’s Land story. That would have been a good story to adapt into a TV show. Last season, addressed class warfare with Roy’s character; I was annoyed that this season didn’t continue that. A minor problem I have with this season ( Besides the head-scratching moments) is that one of the side villains was killed off. This is an issue because this series could have done more with him. Speaking of villains, I've noticed that the writers are humanizing the villains of the week. My grievance with that is the writers are going about it in one way; there are other ways you can do that.  

All in all, this season did what a good sequel does that is elevated the series. The way this season ended made me worried about season three because the ending feels like a series finale. The reason why is that almost everyone who knows Oliver knows he's The Arrow. I'll be impressed if season three is as good as well.   

My Batman rant

My Batman rant



Man O man, this topic has been a long time coming. Batman is the most overrated, overexposed, and overused DC character. I know it, you know it, heck, the whole world knows it. Don’t believe me, then why does Batman have six or seven different cartoons and no one complains about other DC characters not having their own cartoon or TV show? I bet your favorite Justice League episode has Batman in it. (To be fair, he's in most of them.) 

Why aren’t people complaining about Rocksteady not making video games for other DC characters? Speaking of video games why is Batman the first thing you see when you play MK vs DC? Why didn’t WB produce movies about other DC characters from 1997 to 2005? Why do you think Batman got a lot of screen time in the Lego movie? Why is Batman in the Green Lantern Blackest Night, TMNT and Predator comics? Ever since Mr. Nolan’s Batman films and the Arkham games Batman’s fan base is getting out of hand, before the dark knight rises came out the fans made threats to people who didn’t give the movie good reviews.

Here’s an example of how crazy a fan acts.

I don’t dislike Batman, I dislike his fan base. Well, I do have issues with this character, but I'll get into that later. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded Batman getting all this attention if the writers would come up with better stories or do interesting things with Dr. Hugo Strange, Mr. Freeze, Bane, and have Batman be at Ra's al Ghul's mercy. (Plus, a Nightwing movie.) The fans do things that annoys me, like comparing Batman to other characters, especially Superman. It’s not fair to do that because of how different they are. 

Since we're on the subject of Superman, one of the things they have in common is that both characters are hard to write. Batman is hard to write because writers focus on different aspects of the character, which leads to different interpretations, ask Frank Miller. Side note, this is what bothered me about Greg Rucka's run of the character in the 2000s, he took the worst traits of this character and put them on full display with no rhyme or reason. Also, if you think Bruce Wayne/Batman suffers from a personality disorder, you have no business writing superhero comic books. Yes! He is mentally disturbed, but not to that degree. 

Everyone doing their own thing with the character can be problematic because we won't have a definitive version of this character. Batman is a character who fights crime and inspires people. Yes! He uses fear and violence. However, he doesn't internalize it. This character may not be known for telling jokes, but he does have his moments of dry humor or says something that can be turned into a joke. Batman reminds me of James Bond as far as going on adventures, having hi-tech gadgets, and getting with women. 

Going back to interpretations, my favorite interpretation of Batman is Batman: The Animated Series because that version humanizes the character. Batman tries to reason with the villains, show them compassion, and he smiles. He's not always a brute. I also like Mr. Bale as Batman, because he uses Batman as a symbol to inspire people. Superman is hard to write because people don’t find this character appealing. You can make Superman one of the smartest characters in the DC Universe, and people will still complain. People shouldn’t have an issue with that because his father, Joe-El, was a scientist. You make Superman-like Batman people complain, you make Superman a father people complain, see, you can’t win when it comes to Superman. Also, I think people dislike Superman for the wrong reason and like Batman for the wrong reason. 

A Batman fan: I can relate to Batman because he’s human, which makes him relatable and a more realistic hero.

By that logic, we should relate to Mr. Zimmerman and the late Bin Laden for what they have done because their human. As far as him being realistic, he’s not; he’s far-fetched. Even Mr. Nolan’s Batman films were far-fetched; I mean, there were elements of Sci-Fi in those films. Also, there are comic books that made Batman more realistic than Mr. Nolan’s films. Batman is not really human, I mean, he does things that aren’t humanly possible, like breathe underwater for ten to twenty minutes, jump from skyscrapers and land perfectly, and his brain is like a computer. 

How is he human and realistic if he can do the things I just mentioned? Also, the writers of this character don’t explain how he can do these things. I’m so sick and tired of the because I'm Batman excuse. If I hear that again, I'm going to hurt someone. The because I’m Batman statement holds no value because we know he was trained to become Batman for years. Michael Jordan would look silly if he said I can shoot half-court shots because I'm Michael Jordan. We know he was trained to play basketball. (Granted! Not every NBA player can do that, but that's not the point.) 

As far as being relatable goes, I can understand that he saw his parents get shot and murdered right in front of him at a young age; that’s not easy to live with. However, how many people do you know who watch their parents die and dress up as a bat to fight crime? None, I thought so. So, what do you mean, Batman is relatable? Also, what happens to people when they go through a traumatic event? They go to therapy; do you think Bruce would still be Batman if he got help? Heck, do you think he would still be Batman if he finished his training with Master Kirigi?   

Sidenote, there was a time in the comics when he tells other characters that he's motivated by his parent's death. That annoyed me because other characters lost more than him "cough" Superman "cough".  Heck, Cassandra Cain is a more tragic character than him. (Bruce’s parents would still be alive if they had Alfred wait for them in their car when the movie was over, or if Bruce’s parents had taken a Taxi instead of walking in a dark alley. Seriously, what were they thinking?) The fact that Batman is a Billionaire is enough for you not to relate to him. I mean, most people don't know what it's like to be a Billionaire. So let me get this straight; you can relate to Batman despite him being wealthy, but you can't relate to Superman despite him being vulnerable to human emotions. What are you people smoking!?!  

Whether or not Batman should be considered a hero doesn't change the fact that he's an angry man who doesn't know how to deal with his parent’s death. Alfred and other characters have said that to him, well, not word for word. This is no different if any wealthy person drives into a dangerous place at night and hits criminals with a police club. If you don’t believe me about Bruce not getting over his parent's death, then why are there episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and the Justice League cartoons where Bruce would be happy if his parents weren't murdered?  

I’m not trying to be insensitive; I know losing loved ones is not easy to deal with; however, being fixated on their deaths is not the best way of coping. Bruce is letting his fear and anger control his life, just like Spider-Man is letting his guilt control his life. Well, in the Batman Gotham Adventure comic called Batman no more suggests that he would still be Batman because his absence has negative effects on everyone he knows. 

His trauma is also affecting his relationships; it's hard for him to allow himself to be vulnerable with anyone besides Alfred, and this causes him to push people away. This is how I can relate to this character because I do this, so I won't be a burden on anyone. This makes Batman a tragic character because he feels like he can't escape being Batman, and he's obsessed with crime. The bottom line is that whether or not you can relate to a character is not a good enough reason to like or dislike that character. You don't need to do that to be on their side. If that's the case, then the X-Men shouldn't be popular because we don't have superpowers. 

Also, if you don’t like the Government, then you shouldn't like Batman. If you're not fond of the Government spying on people, manipulating people, and strong-arming them, then why does Batman get a pass? He's also one of the most paranoid and distrustful characters I've seen in fiction. Why do you think he has kids as sidekicks? Because they're easy to manipulate. (To be fair, almost anyone can be manipulated if you have authority over them, but I digress.) He does give them stability, plus this shows that Bruce wants a family. Despite that, I would like to see a story exploring how Bruce and his team feel about getting involved in his war on crime? 

Being a part of Bruce's crusade doesn't have a positive effect on everyone. 

                                         
   

I know the writers did this in the cartoons however it was one-sided. His allies resent Bruce because they feel like he cares more about the mission than his surrogate family and Bruce doesn't reassure them that that's not the case. The thing I want to see happen more with Batman is him losing fighting the villains or trying to stop their plans. Where’s the fun in reading or watching this character if you know he’s going to win in the end? 

That’s the main reason why Knightfall is one of my favorite Batman stories because that’s one of the few times Batman gets his butt kicked. He also lost to the reaper in year two, but that story has issues. Batman couldn't beat KGB in Batman ten nights of the beast. Deathstroke beat him in his comic called City of Assassins. I was annoyed that Deathstroke or Bane didn’t give Batman a run for his money in Arkham Origins.  

Seriously what was the point of showing us this if this was not going to happen in the game? 

To the people who say Superman is overpowered, how is rarely losing any better? I mean, fans say Batman can beat anyone with prep time. Athletes and Soldiers use prep time to prepare for battle or a game. Do they always win? If the answer is no, then why is Batman excluded from that? Side note, I’m surprised that no one made a comic book series or TV show based on Bruce’s seven-year leave from Gotham, before or after Batman Begins. I think it’s funny that Batman was able to stop the Justice League in JLA: Tower of Babel. I mean, he can make plans to stop the Justice League, but he can’t make a plan to stop the Joker. 

A Batman fan: The Joker is unpredictable. 

Yeah, so what? He should know that by now. 

Going back to the Joker, I find it hard to believe that he knows Batman well enough to know that someone else is under the cowl. There are two things he knows about Batman they are he doesn't kill, and he's resourceful. In the World’s Finest Movie, I'd better see Superman or Wonder Woman mop the floor with Batman; fans seem to forget that Batman is human. I hope this movie will remind them of that. 

Let me readdress the things I don’t like about Batman, I'm not fond that he got kids involved in crime-fighting. Yes! He does train them, and he's protective of them. However, it's still irresponsible. Plus, they're not prepared to deal with the aftermath of it. Just like the Army doesn't prepare soldiers to deal with the aftermath of war, they wouldn't suffer from survivor's guilt or PTSD if that wasn't the case, but I digress. 

He’s not that smart. I'll elaborate on that later. He's self-aware about how his trauma affects him, but he doesn't do anything about it. This makes him look less sympathetic. He doesn't fight fair with it comes to metahumans. This wouldn't be an issue if he didn't have an ego and wasn't a hypocrite. I mean, how can you say guns are for cowards, and you don't fight metahumans directly? Also, he's no different from the villains as far as having an obsession. How is Batman's obsession with crime any different from the Joker's obsession with discrediting Batman, the Riddler’s obsession with proving his intellect, the Scarecrow’s obsession with fear, Poison Ivy's obsession with plants, Firefly's obsession with burning things, Mad Hatter's obsession with finding Alice, the list goes on.

Do I really have to comment on his no-kill rule? I mean, it shouldn't come at the expense of other people. Under the Red Hood addresses this issue; Jason (Bruce's former ally) feels like Bruce values that rule more than him. The reason he gave Jason for why he doesn't kill the Joker is that he's afraid that he won't stop killing or lose his humanity. If that's the case, then Bruce shouldn't be fighting crime because doing this should cost you something; if you're not willing to pay the price, then what are you doing this for? I'm starting to think that the reason why Batman doesn't kill the Joker is that he enjoys chasing after him on some level. Look at how Arkham City ended if you don't believe me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want to see Batman dropping bodies left and right, but if he has to resort to killing, it shouldn't make him look less credible. Some religious people put themselves in a position to break the 6th commandment by joining the Army or the police force. Does that mean that they don't take their faith seriously?     

Let me ask you something, Batman fans; how is Bruce Wayne different from any other wealthy person? He isn’t, as far as spending most of his money on himself. Just because he isn't a douchebag like Tony Stark or Donald Trump, that doesn't protect him from the stigma of being rich. Crime exists because of poverty and inequality, to an extent. If he can afford to upgrade his Batsuit, the Batcave, equipment, and make his Batmobile more secure than the President’s limo, then he has nothing better to do with his time or money. 

Look, I'm not saying that this character isn't a philanthropist or that he shouldn't spend most of his money on himself; however, there are smarter ways to fix Gotham than putting himself in danger. For example, Bruce should have given his hi-tech gadgets to the Gotham P.D. to create a special task force. Do you see what I mean when I say he's not that smart? Heck, even Alfred suggested that in The Dark Knight Rises. Don’t give me that Gotham P.D. is corrupted nonsense. If that’s the case, then Bruce should have hired Lawyers to get rid of the Police Department so that the Department can be rebuilt. 

Before you say Bruce used his wealth to rebuild Gotham after No Man's Land, first of all, that's a given. I mean, Gotham is not going to rebuild itself. Second, Bruce had to do that to save face. (If you read No Man's Land, you know what I'm talking about.) This all boils down to credibility. Do you think Bruce's efforts as a philanthropist are credible? Personally, he still doesn't have the high ground. I know you can't fix everything with money, but you can't fix things from a distance either. If you read Knightfall, you know he took his life of luxury for granted. 

If Bruce did the things I suggested, then Gotham could be fixed, but no, he wants to send that money on himself because he has problems. Heck, Bruce’s father made the same suggestion in the trailer for the latest Arkham game. That's the problem, it's hard to appreciate Bruce as a Philanthropist when the movies and cartoons don't focus on that. (If they did, it's an afterthought.) Besides No Man's Land, the popular Batman comics don't focus on that either. 

Also, Batman’s villains can be stopped without Batman around, like the GCPD should have put a RICO case on Black Mask and Penguin. The FBI can stop the Riddle; his riddles are not so hard that they can't figure them out. Bane exists to challenge Batman; no Batman, no Bane. Ra’s al Ghul wouldn’t come to Gotham if he sees that Gotham isn’t corrupted. Two-Face would be in a psych ward and get surgery for his face. SWAT can handle Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc can be contained and get help for his condition. Also, Mad Hatter would also be in a Psych ward, and The Joker can be stopped without Batman by playing mind games with him. 

Besides Clayface, Catwoman is the one villain that can be hard to stop; she's smart, resourceful, and maintains a low profile. To be fair, I don't consider Catwoman a villain; she works better as a morally ambiguous character. I found it odd that Batman doesn't have a plan to stop her from stealing. That's because he's trying to... (My editor pops me upside the head.) 

Me: What! I wasn't going to say anything sexual. 

My Editor: You were thinking about it.

Me: I didn't say anything! (My editor grabs a bat, no pun intended.) Fine, I'll move on.

Side note, another reason why Gotham City is a mess is that they can't or won't execute the Joker because he can hide behind the insanity plea. Are you kidding me? How smart do you have to be to see that the Joker is aware of his actions? Yes! He's crazy, but he's not stupid. Also, I find it funny that they don't suspect Bruce is Batman, not just because he has the means to be Batman, it's because of the different wards he has.   

The bottom line is that DC and WB need to give Batman a break and focus on other DC characters, stop making other DC characters look bad just to make Batman look awesome. Well, to be fair, some DC characters are not really DC characters. I don’t have time to get into that. Also, stop doing that with the Joker, I mean, stop making the other Batman villains play second fiddle to make the Joker look good. 

You tried to expose us to Green Lantern twice with a movie and, cartoon, but the movie wasn’t a hit, and the cartoon got canceled. There hasn’t been a good Superman movie in decades. I didn’t consider Man of Steel to be a good movie. Also, when are you going to make good Superman video games? Do I really have to comment on Wonder Woman? I’m glad that Green Arrow is getting his moment to shine in the show Arrow, I just wish it wasn't at Batman's expense. I hope the Flash show does the same for the Flash. So, DC, WB, you'd better pick up the pace; look at how many characters Marvel has introduced to the public. 

P.S. If Batman is so awesome, why wasn’t he picked to fight Goku in Death Battle? If Batman were picked, how do you think he can beat Goku?