Black Lighting season four review

Black Lighting season four review 

 

Intro: Despite Not being crazy about this series I'm happy that it gave us a positive representation of a Black family. I haven't seen that since the 90's kind of. Plus this was the closest we're going to get to see a Fantastic Four series. With that said I was outraged that this show is getting canceled in favor of a spinoff of Painkiller because the creators could have done more with this character. I refuse to believe that the low rating is the reason why it's getting canceled because there are other shows on this network that have low ratings and yet they lasted longer, this doesn't make the CW look good. With that out of the way did this series end on the high note or was it just meh let's find out... 

Black Lightning season four: This season takes place one year after the war with Markovian and Freeland is still recovering from the aftermath. On top of that, the Piece's family are at odds with each other. To make things worse Tobias Whale resurface and he has a plan to take over Freeland. So the Piece family has to come together to stop Tobias once and for all. 

This wasn't a bad season however it has a lot of shortcomings that keep it from being better. This season lacks focus on the things that it establishes, really it should have been longer so these things can get flushed out. There are parts of the ending that bugs me I can't comment on that without spoiling the ending. It's hard to talk about the new characters because they are either underdeveloped or underused. Since this is the last season it's a shame that it doesn't play around with having a shared universe. 

Jefferson Piece's/Black Lightning is in a bad state of mind because of the aftermath of Markovian. That's what bothers me about him I mean I find it hard to believe that he would be this messed up over something that isn't his fault. Also how he got out of his funk came out of nowhere. It feels like the writers don't know what to do with this character. 

Lynn piece's is annoying because she has an inferiority complex in this season. 

Khalil/Painkiller has split personality issues that he's trying to resolve. 

Jennifer Piece's/lightning is suffering from an identity crisis in this season. This subplot is confusing considering what's going on with the actress behind the scenes. 

 

Tobias Whale is a much better villain than he was in season two because he feels like DC's version of the Kingpin. The problem I have with him is that this season could have ended differently if he wasn't playing around. 

I do like part of the ending because it's kind of fitting. This season raises the stakes for the characters in this movie. Overall that was better than season two but not as good as season three.  

My thoughts on spoilers

 My thoughts on spoilers 

 

The reason why I'm talking about this is that there is something about this topic that I didn't consider. To me, spoilers are giving away the ending or twist in the movie. That's where I made my mistake, I mean I thought how people viewed spoilers was universal but that's not the case. If you review and movie or tv show you're spoiling it just by talking about it. In a review you give a summary of the plot and the characters, how is that surprising? Doing that can be distracting let's use Iron Man 3 for example. If someone warned you about the Mandarin twist, would you be able to enjoy the movie with that in the back of your mind? Also, how people view a movie can ruin it for everyone else. Let's say you're looking forward to watching a Transformers movie, but people said bad things about it. Does that make you second guess watching the movie? The Dark Knight is another example that movie got a lot of hype and it's a miracle that it didn't crash and burn under people's expectations.  

I understand where people are coming from however, I see regular reviews as a compromise. This is why I tried to be as cryptic as I can when I review movies and TV shows. However, that can be challenging for me because it's hard to talk about films if it doesn't have much going on in them. Would you watch Forest Gump if I said it's about a man living out his life? The premise doesn't sound interesting however the director and screenplay can make or break that premise. The reason why I don't consider regular reviews spoilers is because just because I know about the plot that doesn't mean I know how it's going to play out, it's not always about the destination for me it's about the journey. Before you ask why are spoilers excluded from that it's because you can only experience not knowing once unless you don't watch the movie for a long time. 

The issue with spoilers today is that there are no restrictions. I mean people post and talk about the movie or show ASAP without considering if people already saw it or want to see it. The people who do this have this it's your problem mentality they have every right to feel that way however it doesn't change the fact that doing this could make them look less credible. I mean you're doing a spoiler review of a movie or TV show as soon as it comes out that requires you to remember everything that happens in the movie or show. Also, what you see doesn't always resonate with your mind. Another thing you have to be informed about what you're watching for example if you're watching a movie about the life of a doctor you should know what that's like so you won't be confused about what's going on. This is why I don't review a lot of anime or mange's because I'm not that familiar with Japanese culture. Plus, anime seems to last as long as soap operas.   

Another thing is you got to have the right mindset, I mean if you're depressed or mad and you watch something that makes you feel worse it's going to add fuel to the fire. You risk misrepresenting the film. You won't appreciate with the writer or director is doing because you're in a bad mood. That can happen women do this most of the time. I mean how many times do they talk about how bad their ex was and not mentioned the mistakes they made in the relationship? This happens to me I didn't give shows, movies, books, or video games fair reviews because I was mad or misinformed. Really, it's hard to give anything a fair review look up the primal effect and you'll see what I mean. This is why I wait after the weekend from time to time to review a movie by doing that I'm giving myself a chance to process what I've watched. When I want to do a spoiler review, I wait after it comes out on Blu-Ray that's enough time to give people a chance to watch the movie or show. There are times where I screwed up my reviews because there was something I missed. 

Another reason why people should post spoilers is that it's inconsiderate of others. I mean everyone doesn't have access to those spoilers. To be fair there are times where I'm guilty of doing that with older movies. If someone complains about me spoiling the I am your father reveal in Star Wars; my response would be Oh shut up! That movie is over fourth years old, it's not my fault you're late to the party. Then again, if someone spoiled an older movie that I haven't seen I would be annoyed too. 

If you are doing this to get attention from others, you're wasting your time because people don't care what you post not you as a person. I'm surprised that giving reviews before the movie comes out didn't cause any problems with Hollywood. The people who worked on Terminator Salvation had to change the ending because someone linked it on the internet. Well, people spoil WWE matches on the internet and that didn't affect them as far as I know. I'm not saying reviews don't matter however we have to learn how to respect people's boundaries, if you don't want to know anything about a movie or TV show then don't say anything about them. We shouldn't have to stay off the internet to avoid spoilers.           

My review of Mortal Kombat 2021

My review of Mortal Kombat 2021

 

Intro: So, let me get this straight, it's OK for Power Rangers, the Avengers movies, and the Pirates of the Caribbean films can have a character that overshadows everyone else, but not this movie. Just because Johnny Cage has a big personality, that doesn't mean that this franchise doesn't have interesting characters. (For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm addressing one of the reasons why Johnny Cage is not in this movie.)     

Mortal Kombat 2021: This movie is centered on a kickboxer name Cole Young who fell from grace. His day is about to get worse when he learns that he's chosen to fight in a tournament called Mortal Kombat, and people are trying to kill him before the tournament starts. With the help of allies, Cole has to prepare for Mortal Kombat and avoid being killed. 

This movie is worse than the 95 film but not as bad as the 97 film, which isn't saying much. This movie feels like a setup for the next film, which makes watching this movie a waste of time. The way this movie incorporates lines from the game feels tacked on. I don't like the explanation as to why these characters have powers because we don't need it, and it raises more questions than answers. Considering the lack of story this movie has, I'm starting to think that this franchise can't work as a movie. 

Heck, some games tried to be story-driven, but they fall flat. 

This movie wouldn't exist if one character did his or her job. Why is this movie called Mortal Kombat if (censor)? The movie also has head-scratching moments in it. Fans are not going to be happy to see that this movie wasted certain characters. The writers should have created foot soldiers if they didn't know what to do with them. Speaking of characters, they are underdeveloped, wooden, and boring. People talk about how serious Mortal Kombat is; however, it's hard to appreciate it when we don't get an idea of the consequences if Earth realm loses. I wish the writers had done a better job of working around the rules of Mortal Kombat. I don't like the remix of the Mortal Kombat theme song.  

Cole Young is bland. He goes on a hero's journey in this movie, but the journey needs more work. I don't see why the writers need this character to help us understand this world. You could have done that with any character in this franchise. The reason why this character was created is so that the creators would prevent a reaction from SJWs. I wish someone would stand up to them. 

Liu Kang and Kung Lao are wise sages who mentor the selected fighters. What bugs me about Liu Kang is that he feels like a supporting character. This is an issue because he's the hero of this franchise. 

There isn't much to say about Sonya and Jax; they are special forces officers. 

Kano is the comic relief due to his punchable face. With that said, something missing with him; you'll know what I'm talking about when you watch the movie.  

Sub-Zero would have been ruthless if he hadn't wasted time killing his targets! His rivalry with Scorpion is serviceable. It's a shame that he's a henchman for Shang because we would like him to stand on his own. 

Speaking of Shang Tsung (the main villain.) I can't comment on him because he's barely in the movie. 

The bloody violence is fine, it's just not as good as the video games. The movie has Easter eggs for fans to spot. All in all, this was another failed attempt to make this franchise work on the big screen. Watch this movie at your own risk. 

Rating = Trash   

My review of Godzilla vs Kong

My review of Godzilla vs Kong 

 

Intro: In order for Hollywood to copy what the MCU did they need to get better at it. I mean how can you make a MonsterVerse if you only focus on two monsters? 

Godzilla VS Kong: The movie takes place years after the last Godzilla movie and Monarch is trying to find a new home for Kong. That becomes difficult when Godzilla gets in their way and he's wreaking havoc. So, Monarch has to figure out why Godzilla is acting out of control before he and Kong destroy everything trying to kill each other.   

Out of all the verses movies I enjoy this one the most which isn't saying much. The movie made references to the 1962 film of the same name. I like the role the human characters play in this movie because they feel like supporting characters. We also learn more about the titans in this movie. The movie balances the three stories well, and something happened in the climax that took me by surprise. Godzilla not having a lot of screen time helps build suspense when we see him. Speaking of Godzilla, he is ruthless in this movie, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. The fights between Godzilla and Kong were satisfying because I didn't think Godzilla would put up much of a fight because he has small arms, boy was I wrong. 

Bernie Hayes is a conspiracy theorist who's suppose to be the comic relief but he isn't funny. 

Dr. IIene Andrews is Kong's Whisperer with the help of a little girl from his island and Kong has a good rapport with the girl. This is another thing I wish Peter Jackson would have done with his remake. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is that it's centered on Kong and Godzilla feels like a guest star. I'm not saying Godzilla's story doesn't matter however it didn't get much focus. The trailers gave away what was suppose to be a surprise, do we have to stick with teaser trailers now? I don't like how the other Titans are written out of the movie, how can you have a monster verse without monsters? The movie also suffers from plot holes and a lack of humor. Just because this is the type of movie where you have to suspend your disbelief that doesn't mean it can't be sophisticated. Also, this movie left more to be desired.    

All in all, this is a popcorn flick that both Kaiju fans and the general public can have fun with.    

Rating = Rental 

My rant about fandom

 My rant about fandom

In case you've been living under a rock since December or don't have social media, two fanbases got a lot of attention on the internet they are the Star Wars fans and the DC, I mean Mr. Snyder, fans. Before I talk about those two, I want to address what makes someone a fan of something? A fan is someone interested in or has admiration for someone or something. When a franchise becomes part of the mainstream media, things get complicated. For example, if you grew up in the 90s or 00s, you know playing video games is one of the two things that wasn't popular, and the ladies don't find it sexy. Thanks to online gaming, it won over the public. (If I'm wrong about online games being the cause of this, then I stand corrected.) 

I'm glad that this happened because it makes the people who enjoy video games from day one feel less isolated. On the other hand, it creates a lot of issues. For example, the gaming industry will try to make as much money off of it, no matter what. We enable them to do that by buying DLCs. Don't get me started on price-gouging retro games. This hurts the quality of games, people are complaining that there should be easy modes on them because video games are too hard. Plus, they feel left out of the game's ending and unlocking things. 

This is why video games are turning into interactive stories, because the gaming industry is trying to appeal to people who don't play games like that. What makes video games fun is overcoming difficulty in-game and competing with other players or the A.I. Every game having an easy mode gimmick could hurt the game, depending on what you're playing. Just because you don't have time to play video games, that doesn't mean game developers should cater to you. Do you really think people who play video games don't have jobs? Some gamers make fun of you for not playing a game on hard mode, and my response to the last thing I said is Who cares? I mean, it's not like I'm getting paid to beat the game on hard mode. Also, if people enjoy playing games on hard mode, then why does the term rage out exist? 

Reading comic books was the second thing that wasn't popular, and the comic book movies didn't change people's minds. That change thanks to Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Comic Book movies or movies in general face a different problem that is Identity politics and SJWs. In the past five or six years, Hollywood let the writer or director project themselves on the movie instead of staying true to the characters. The comics also have this problem, which makes it worse. Zack Snyder is an example of that, because he doesn't know Jack about DC characters. Don't believe me, watch his interviews about the DCEU. He turns Batman into the Punisher and Superman into a killer, what the fudge!?! I stopped watching Dawn of Justice after I saw the Martha scene; that scene ruined Batman for me. I understand what Mr. Snyder was trying to do with that scene but the build-up to that scene was wrong. 

Despite that people like the Snyder verse so much that they want the Snyder cut and his verse to continue. They go about it in a way that makes them look uncivilized and paints the fanbase as a whole as toxic to outsiders. Snyder fans also see the release of this movie as a win for fans how? His version wasn't better than the theatrical one if you ask me. Plus, Mr. Snyder's vision for the DCEU is not going to continue because WB lost money with Dawn of Justice and Justice League. ( I was happy that happened because that's what they get for mistreating these characters.) Mr. Snyder threw people under the bus.    

Star Wars faces a different problem, and that's the Prequels. At first, some people liked the prequels, others didn't, and now people are having a change of heart about them. To be fair, the internet played a role in why the prequels were hated for the most part. Disney really divided Star Wars fans because of the sequel trilogy. After that, they gave the fans something they enjoy; a show called The Mandalorian. That was short-lived thanks to one of the Star Wars writers making fun of one of the fans on the internet's reactions to the return of Luke Skywalker in that series. Disney, what's the point of having the rights to Star Wars if you're going to alienate the fanbase? Just because there are people who like the sequel trilogy, that doesn't mean you should bite the hand that feeds you for years. 

Yes! Disney has mistreated Star Wars fans for years. Do you want to go out of business? Disney continues to burn the bridge with people who enjoy The Mandalorian by firing Gina Carano (One of the stars of that series) over her political views, and we can't buy her merchandise. What does that have to do with Star Wars !?! It's bad enough that politics is affecting sports, but it shouldn't affect the media. Disney is also not making money with the Star Wars High Republic books; those books are basically bad fan fiction. I'm going to leave it at that. When George Lucas says you have dropped the ball on Star Wars, you know you screwed up.  

The built-in fanbase makes the division worse by questioning the sincerity of newcomers. If you like the Sequel trilogy, you get made fun of; if you like the Snyder verse, you're not taken seriously if you don't play certain games, beat them are hard mode, not collect all the trophies, you're not a real gamer. I'm guilty of doing this whenever I see a gorgeous woman at E3 or Comic-Con. Where were these attractive women twenty or thirty years ago? I get why fans have this attitude because they face scrutiny for liking these things, so why are they popular now? 

This is the same attitude I had when WB wants to course-correct by making the movies more lighthearted and having the Flash movie fix what Zack Snyder had done. I don't buy it because they wouldn't be in this mess if they cared about the source material from day one. Plus, we still got Mr. Snyder's version of Justice League why? ( I know why that question is rhetorical.) Plus, you don't defend us when we get upset when Hollywood screws up adapting comic books into movies. They think we're just being butt hurts fans over these characters not being accurate to the source material, when it's not about that, it's about preserving these characters. They're not just comic book characters or dollar signs; they have an impact on our culture and society. Because of that, they will outlive us all.  

I know Hollywood is a business; However, you have a responsibility to do these characters right, because people's knowledge of comic book characters is based on what you expose them to. Can you do whatever you want in a movie based on a deceased person? If the answer is no, then how is this any different? ( I know the difference, but the principle is the same.) If you don't think you can make the kind of money you're looking for with these characters, then please leave them alone. 

Look, I want people to enjoy these things; however, you have to know your place. I mean, you can't come into something that you think is beneath you and think your opinion matters more than those who were here from day one. This is why we have terms like causal fans and die-hard fans. If you like the movies or shows but don't read the comics, you have to make that known. I don't agree with the notion that if you don't follow someone or something for better or worse, you're not a real fan. If the writers go against the source material, it's not the same thing.      

Another thing fans shouldn't compete over how much of a fan they are because that doesn't help build a fandom. In the anime community, if you haven't watched 100 anime, you're not an anime fan. I get where people are coming from. I mean, you have to watch more than one anime to be familiar with the tropes and how they tell stories. However, people don't have the time to watch 100 of them, and their interest in anime shouldn't be considered disingenuous because of that. Plus, anime lasted as long as Soap Operas. We should be encouraging others to learn more about the subject, not stroking your ego. I'm a movie buff, but I don't watch interviews about movies that I'm interested in because I want to be surprised by the film; does that not make me a movie buff? The same thing goes for celebrities. I'm not going to look up info about that person because A I don't want to be intrusive, and B there are things that they don't want the public to know about.    

The bottom line is this sucks. I mean, it's sad to see something you like become popular and then get ruined because of ignorance, greed, and laziness. It's bad enough that politics divides us; entertainment shouldn't do the same. That's all I have to say about this subject for now.

My review of Raya and the last Dragon

My review of Raya and the last Dragon 

 

Intro: Is it me or does this movie reminds you of Avatar the last airbender?

Raya and the last Dragon: The movie takes place in a world where Dragons and humans can co-exist called Kumandra. That change when creatures called Drunn terrorize the land and all of the dragon but one of them stop the Drumn. 500 years later the Drunn returns and it's up to a warrior name Raya to find the last Dragon and stop them once and for all.  

This movie is a waste of time! Don't get me wrong I don't think it's terrible, but it would have worked better as a series because it tries to establish a lot in the movie. The humor and dialogue don't work because it's distracting us from the world of this movie. This movie could have been better if it played with our expectations of the main character. The theme of the movie is trust and that was a misstep. I say that because A it's not a black and white issue and B the movie contradicts the lesson it was trying to show about trust. The movie doesn't do much with the characters and things could have played out differently if it wasn't for the theme was handled in this movie.  

Raya is a fierce and courageous warrior who has trouble trusting people due to her past. What bugs me about her is the way she interacts with her rival. It's hard for me to take it seriously when they come off as chummy.  

Sisu is a fun-loving Dragon who tries to be amusing. My issue with this character is that she put herself in danger to prove her point when it makes her look foolish. 

Boun is the fast-taking comic relief.

Namaari (Raya's rival.) is conniving. What bugs me about her is the movie tried to paint her as the villain. I don't see her as one because both her and Raya want the same thing. That's another thing she seems to regret her role in why things are bad, but her actions contradict that.    

The animation in this movie is beautiful and breathtaking. I like that this movie is different from most Disney films as far as being an adventure film. Besides Mulan, this is another film that took inspiration from another culture. Overall, this is not a good movie and that's a shame because it could have been better than it was. You're better off watching Avatar the Last Airbender. 

Rating = Rental   

My rant about villains

My rant about villains 

 

Do you remember Cruella De vil? You know the villain from 101 Dalmatians well she's getting her own movie. No! This is not a joke, I'm not high, drunk, on meth or having a fever dream. There is a trailer for this movie. Who asked for a standalone movie on Cruella? This movie should be called Devils Wear Prada 2 because that's what it looks like. I doubt she's one of Disney's best villains. Since we're on the subject of female villains I'm tired of not seeing them get their comeuppances, I mean what's the point of them being villains if we don't see them get beat up? No! I'm not advocating violence against women however if you don't like the idea of female baddies getting pounded then don't have them as villains. Disney is not the only one doing this Sony and WB are making movies about the baddies as well. If this doesn't tell you that Hollywood is running out of ideas, I don't know what will. 

The problem I have with villains getting solo films is that it makes them empathetic or sympathetic to the viewer. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact, it can make them scarier when we see things from their point of view. For example, I heard Hitler wanted to be an artist, if that's true you don't think it's sad that he turned out the way he did? Then again you can argue understanding bad guys makes them less scary because you know how to deal with them. Making movies about villains can be an issue if the creators make them victims after the fact. Also, you could risk trivializing their motivation. With that said the downside to this is if we do it too often lines get blurred. Basically, it's a role reversal we view the bad guy as the hero and the hero as the bad guy. Plus, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is one of the many things that hurt the Inhumans series and the Pirates of the Caribbean films. 

My editor: Wait a minute! If that's how you feel about the subject, then why did you watch the Mandalorian? 

Me: First of all, Bounty Hunters operate in the grey area I mean what they do benefits both sides. Second, we explore the Galaxy through the perspective of the Jedi for the most part. This show gives us a different point of view. Finally, if you don't think anyone should get paid for taking a life then you shouldn't support the Troops, FBI, CIA, etc. 

My point is just because the bad guy is the main character doesn't mean you have to root for or feel sorry for the character. Godfather, Scarface and Breaking Bad wouldn't be a hit if that was the case. Also, you don't want to run the risk of deconstruction the bad guy and ruining the integrity of that archetype. What happened to bad guys being evil for evil's sake? We can't get caught up in thinking everyone is misunderstood or victims because we still have to hold people accountable for their actions. 

Despite the world not being clear-cut evil does exist, if you don't believe that then you shouldn't have a problem with being a victim of assault, rape and mass shootings. The people who do these things shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because when you deny evil you deny responsibility. I know people are put in a position to do bad things but where do we draw the line? I mean how do you distinguish someone being a victim of circumstance from someone being evil? You can say what you will about Power Rangers that's one of the few kid's shows that shows kids that not all villains are pure evil.

I don't have any issues with sympathetic villains however it shouldn't come at the expanse of already establish characters unless they're obscure. That's what bothers me about the Joker movie. What the writers did with the character in that movie we already got with Carrie. Plus, there's no reason to have sympathy for a villain who enjoys causing death and destruction. I'm not saying you can't do it, but the ends don't justify the means regardless of if he's doing it for attention or to prove a point. I didn't mind the Venom movie because he was an anti-hero in the comics, but Sony wasted this character by turning him into a joke. Plus, Spider-Man wasn't in the movie. I mean for an anti-hero story to work you need a hero to bounce off of, that's what made the Deadpool movies work. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing Bane Conquest get adapted. I would like to see a Riddler movie because geniuses are not appreciated. 

Fans of Power should be outraged that Starz is producing a prequel series on Kanen. Kanen said he was never good so why do we need to see his upbringing? (To be fair I don't see Kanen as the bad guy in that series, but I digress.) Speaking of prequels do you think Luke Skywalker would save his father's soul if he knew that he killed children? If that doesn't make him as evil as the emperor what does? What I took from how Anakin became Darth Vader is that unforgiveness causes people to do bad things. This is something that most people struggle with because A there are things that we consider unforgivable like rape and murder. B no one should tell you how you should feel when someone wronged you because it's not our place to do that. With that said how do you expect to have world peace if you don't have peace within yourself?  

I'm not crazy about horror films but this affects them too. I mean writers tried to humanize the killers are you kidding me? They should get beat up for doing this because it makes the killer less scary. In the original Halloween movie, we were told the killer is pure evil, in the remake, the writers ruined that by turning him into a victim. The remake of Nightmare on ELM Street was trying to make Freddy look like he was falsely accused of a crime and killing the kids of the people who killed him as playback. Doing this to the baddies is no different from turning a character like Superman into a bad guy. 

Despite that, there are exceptions to the rule like Mr. Freeze, Dr. Octopus, and Thanos. Before Batman the animated series Mr. Freeze was a forgettable villain, now he's someone you feel sorry for because he's doing bad things to try and save his dying wife. Spider-Man 3 did a terrible job at this with the Sandman. The same thing goes for Spider-Man Homecoming. That's one of the issues I have with Mr. Freeze it's hard to care about him saving his wife if we don't know what their relationship is like. Spider-Man 2 made Dr. Octopus compelling by having him complete his science project at the expense of others because he believes it will benefit mankind. After realizing the error of his ways, he sacrifices himself to save the city because he made his bed and he has to sleep in it. Infinity War gave Thanos a humanitarian reason to wipe out half of the universe, plus he made sacrifices to do that. Despite that, he was still labeled as the bad guy because A he had no reason to do this and B he didn't consider how this would affect the survivors. 

The bottom line is we are not meant to root for the villains. They exist to show us what happens when you're selfish, cruel, abuse your power, and the pathway to hell is paved with the best intentions. You can't always make excuses for it and you shouldn't. (Also, not every villain needs a backstory.) If you do root for the bad guy that says a lot about you. Sympathetic villains exist so we can show compassion for them not defend their actions. That's all I have to say about this subject, for now, what do you think about villains in media?     

My rant about free speech

 

My rant about free speech

 

Intro: I didn't want to talk about this at first because I didn't think I had a lot to say about the subject. However, something happened to our soon-to-be former President that bothers me. 

OK I know last year was challenging for almost everyone now that we're getting the vaccine sooner than expected things could get a little bit better. (My reaction to what happened on January 6.) Oh, you have got to be kidding me! After that President Trump has been ban from using any social media site. Now they have a right to do that however this scares me, I mean if they can ban the President from social media what made you think it won't happen to you? Plus, they could lose consumers.  

It's hard for me to blame President Trump for what happened because first of all, someone can argue that his supporters don't know how to read between the lines. Yes! He said if we don't fight, we won't have a country, however, I don't think that was meant to be taken literally. For those of you who are lawyers, how many times do you tell your clients if you want custody of your kids, you have to fight for them? Then again you can argue that he insinuated the situation because he showed no remorse over this, he didn't berate his supporters and he encouraged the Liberate Michigan movement. That's the problem with reading between the lines you could be wrong half of the time. Also, what about Rep. Mo Brooks? I mean what he said was more violent than what President Trump said. 

Second, the people who storm the Capitol are not kids! Do you really think people wouldn't have done that if President Trump didn't promote the idea that the election was stolen for mouths? Even if he said that the election wasn't stolen it doesn't matter because we are divided. I mean look at the last election it divided people, there was a story of a mother who threw her 8-year-old son out of the home because he voted for Mr. Trump. 

Finally, if you're going to hold President Trump's feet to the fire you should do the same thing to the media and authority figures. They're guilty of either spreading false information or not telling us the whole story. Do you remember the game telephone where you tell a story to one person and another and another to see if everyone going to tell the same story? That's how news outlets are now. For example, whenever a White person commits a crime, the media makes excuses for them. 

They're pushing a narrative that they are above committing crimes when we know that's not true. The media try to make the Capitol invasion about gun control or domestic terrorism. May I ask how? When people broke into the Capitol they did different things like taking a tour of the building, taking pictures with police, stealing, looking for proof that the election was stolen and everyone else was acting like they were in Project X. As far as gun control there was only one gun involved in this situation, so what are they talking about? I don't agree with the definition of domestic terrorism because it's no different from a revolution. Revolutions can get bloody just like a protest can get violent. So how can we view one thing as bad and not the other if we can't separate the two? 

If it was up to me, I would charge the invaders with breaking and entering, aggravated assault, and vandalism. I don't like the idea of social media banning people for false information because A they didn't care about that until now as far as I know. B This could happen to anyone I mean can you tell the difference between someone lying, exaggerating, and being misinformed? Let me get this straight you have to work with people you don't like but you can lose your job for having an opinion that people frown upon. How does that work? This is why we don't deserve to survive this virus because we let our political views push each other away and we take away people's jobs because they said something we don't like. 

When you're honest with people they react like this. 

News flash that's the price of free speech (With the expectation of promoting violence against someone.) someone is going to say something you're not fond of. People shouldn't be censored, lose their jobs or their life because of it. The fact that it does happen tells me that what the person said could be valid. If that's not the case then nothing they say shouldn't bother you, when it does you can either ignore them or change your image. I'm sorry the last suggestion won't help much because people will say bad things about you no matter what. Like I said before they don't need a legit reason to dislike you and they don't need our permission. 

Also, society needs to have a better attitude about people saying nasty things about the dead. If anyone badmouths someone who died, we shouldn't berate that person because it's not our place to do that. Do you think parents should be vilified for saying good riddance to a man who did inappropriate things with their kids and got away with it? People should have the right to express how they feel about the dead regardless of whether or not they like what the person said. Should people never fart because you don't like the smell of it? ( I know that's frowned upon but that's a sign that you have a good digestive system.) If the answer is no, then that's my point. Really, this is a backhanded compliment I mean you didn't respect the person when he or she was alive now that the person is dead you want to act like you have home training. Now if someone said something egregious at the funeral that's a different story. sidenote the dead can't defend themselves is not a good enough reason for people to not say negative things about the dead. We can't defend ourselves from authority figures abusing their power. So please come up with a better reason than that.  

Just because we have free speech that doesn't mean it will protect you from anyone who will respond in a violent way because there are certain things you shouldn't say to certain people. For example, do you think it's acceptable to say disrespectful things to a man in his own home? If the answer is no, then that's my point. Also, everyone is not going to take your opinion about any subject seriously, especially if you're not familiar with the topic. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't talk about sports but you're not going to be a part of the group. Gatekeeping is not a bad thing because they're protecting the standards. Let's use the Olympics for example, would you be outraged if the Olympics is reduced to the same standards as the Special Olympics because the competitors are complaining about how hard it is to get a gold medal? If the answer is yes, then that's my point. (No offense to disabled people.) 

That's what annoys me about SJWs, dating coaches, and feminists because they ruin the subjects that they talk about. For example, if you don't know what it's like to be the non-select guy and you don't want to find out. Then you shouldn't be talking about them or giving them advice. Fans need to gatekeep Star Wars, comic books, or any franchise from SJWs because they ruined anything they get involved with. Feminists have no business talking about how terrible men are because they don't acknowledge the role, they play in men doing messed-up things. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a part of the conversion however don't act like you were there from day one. This is why I don't talk about politics because I don't know much about it. 

Look it's bad enough that we're losing our right to bear arms we shouldn't lose our free speech as well. How can people learn how to be insertive without it? Walking on eggshells with street dudes and women is hard enough. It's overkill to do that with everyone else. This makes me question how can people still do Jury duty? Do people still trash talk when they play games online? Speaking of playing games online that's what annoys me about online gaming. There's a difference between heckling someone and being disrespectful. Online gamers keep crossing that line, if you're not going to say these things to the person's face you shouldn't say them at all. 

How can we learn or improve ourselves if everyone tells us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear? I can't believe how much our culture has changed in almost twenty years. Heck, we ate up CM Punk's rant ten years ago. When American Idol first aired people praised the original judges for their brutal honesty now you get vilified for doing that. Do I really have to comment on how this is hurting comedy? There was a time where if you take a joke too far someone will let you know. Now that everyone finds everything offensive it's hard to take people's complaints seriously. This makes it hard for comedians to experiment with jokes because they're too worried about upsetting people. Like I said before offending people comes with the territory sometimes you have to take a leap of faith. What's the point of promoting diversity if we can't be individuals? I'm surprised no one is rioting or protesting over this as far as I know. If you want to live in a bubble live on an island or move to China.             

The bottom line is this free speech should be protected because without it it's going to be harder to communicate with people than it already is.   

My review of Pixar's Soul

 My review of Pixar's Soul 

 

Intro: A Pixar movie without a short that can't be good. 

Pixar's Soul: This movie is centered on a middle-aged musician teacher name Joe who wants to play professional Jazz. He gets his chance to play with a jazz band but that becomes difficult when he's in a coma due to him falling into a manhole and his soul is in limbo. So, Joe has to figure out how to get his soul back to his body.

This is one of Pixar's most ambitious films! The movie deals with the concept of souls as far as how do souls play a role into who we become? The body-switching gimmick worked fine in this movie however it's hard to make it funny without it feeling cliche. I'm glad that the movie doesn't spend most of the time in the soul world because that would have been distracting. The CGI in the movie is good but not outstanding. The themes in the movie are passion vs obsession, your passion can turn into an obsession. This is relevant today considering what's going on in the world plus it's easy to be obsessed with something you're passionate about if you're not good at it or fail to realize that you're good at other things.  

I don't have much to say about Joe beyond his love for Jazz and he isn't happy with his life.  

22 is a soul who has no interest in living a life for understandable reasons. I wish this character has a knowledge vs experience dynamic with Joe. Also, this movie did something to undermine his or her credibility.      

One of the problems with this movie is that it can be too much for kids and make them testy if parents don't talk to them about it. The movie set up plot points that I wish got more focus because that would help the movie. The themes could have been done better if the movie explored them more. Is it me or does the designs of the souls in this movie look like candy? 

Overall, this is the only film I enjoy seeing this year that isn't saying much. I would recommend this if you like coco and inside out. 

 

Rating = Worth Seeing 

My review of the Mandalorian seasons one & two

   

My review of the Mandalorian seasons one & two

 

Intro: I am the only one annoyed that the fans call the baby in this series baby Yoda when it's clearly not Yoda?  

The Mandalorian Seasons one & two: This series takes place five years after Return of the jedi and it focuses on a Mandalorian Bounty Hunter name Din Djarin also referred to as Mando. He does what Bounty Hunters do until one day he was hired to capture a baby alien instead he decides to take him back to his kind. That becomes difficult because there are remnants of the empire who are after this baby, so Din has to protect him. 

After being subjected to the prequels and the sequel trilogy this series was refreshing. This is what I was expecting from the Solo movie which is a man exploring the Star Wars universe. Going back to the sequel and prequel trilogy this show did something to fix aspects of those two trilogies that bother me and other people. Unlike other Star Wars properties, this series feels like a Western, heck this could give Firefly a run for its money. Fans will be happy to see some familiar faces in this series and elements only they would notice. The violence in this show is not too much of kids if you ask me however, I would exercise caution. There are moments where the show can be funny and emotional as well. This series has a good message for parents about knowing when to step back when it comes to their child. The show makes you question if the new republic is any different from the empire? 

Din Djarin is a loner who's a resourceful and effective bounty hunter. I appreciate that we see that he has a heart without the kid involved. Speaking of the kid we see that he becomes fond of him however I wonder why he would expose him to the violence of his job? What bugs me about this character is that he's a cliche I mean I'm tired of seeing bounty hunters growing a conscious when it comes to women and children. This makes me question how long has he been doing this? Now I wouldn't mind this if he was breaking away from his conditioning from the Mandalorians. Also, because Din wears a helmet it's hard to tell what he's thinking and feeling at times most of the time. Speaking of his helmet don't get me started on his armor.  Another thing is it me or does mando sound like a slur?     

Greef Karga is the leader of the bounty hunter guild who's uptight about his money, he's also a wild card in this series. 

Cara Dune is a former rebel soldier who loves a good fight, she also has a good rapport with Din because both of them are similar. I like the direction this series took with this character because it works as a redemption story. We learn that she lost her home plant in episode 4 but she doesn't talk about the friends or family she lost.     

Moff Gideon (the main villain.) is the leader of the remnant empire. He's a dangerous and ruthless man who's trying to fill the vacuum that's created by the destruction of the empire. 

One of the many problems with this series is that it sets up plot points to be explored in the spin-off series. What's the point of establishing something just for it to be continued in a different series? I'm not crazy about the two characters this show introduces I'll give you a clue as to who they are. One is from the Clone Wars series and the other is a character we thought died in Return of the Jedi. The reason why the character from Return of the Jedi bugs me is because I'm worried that he or she will step on the main character's toes, will it's too soon to say if this character has done that. Also, despite enjoying the episode this character is in the way it was directed was sloppy.   

As far as the Clone Wars series character goes, I don't like that this show tries to connect with that series because you have to watch that series to understand some of the things that's going on in the show. Plus, this show doesn't feel like it's in the same universe as the movies. It's hard to be invested in the stakes in this show because it's so small and the way the last episode ended is underwhelming. Goku I mean Grogu (The baby's name.) annoys me not because I think he's the most disgustingly marketable character since Pikachu it's because the baby raises more questions about Yoda's species than answers. Also, you start to resent Jedi's who are force-sensitive.  

Overall, this is an enjoyable series that I would recommend if you like Westerns.            

My thoughts on Death Battle

 My thoughts on Death Battle 

I like the concept of Death Battle despite it not being new. Death Battle is a web series created by Screwattack.com, that put two characters from comic books, manga, movies and video games against each other in the battle to the death. This is similar to celebrity deathmatch but not as bloody. Sometimes they mix it up by doing four-way fights and live-action fights. We talk about wanting to see certain characters fight it's just that we couldn't play it out until now.

I first learned about this thought everyone talking about the fight between Superman and Goku. I enjoyed the fight it looks like the people behind it put a lot of work into it. With that said that doesn’t change the fact that people were not happy with the outcome of this fight. I had a feeling that Superman would win that fight because it seems like the creators were overcompensating Goku by giving him senzu beans, the power pole and having him go super saiyan 4 despite it not being canon last I checked. That’s one of the problems I have with that fight Goku cheated by taking a senzu bean. 

To be fair this is an issue I have with these fights I mean they give a character all different abilities from different sources. The end result of the fight between Superman and Goku bothered people so much that they want a rematch. The rematch was worse even with better graphics. That’s another thing that bugs me about this series it seems like the people behind it don’t put as much time or care in most of these fights as they did with the Goku vs Superman fight, I mean that fight felt like an event. 

I don’t know if this started it, but people are losing interest in this series because they think the people behind this show are bias. I can understand why because I do notice that. For example, the fight between Thanos vs Darkside they gave Thanos an unfair advantage by giving him the infinity gauntlet. I wasn’t crazy about the Mario vs Sonic fight because it wasn’t a fair fight. I understand why the creators would put these two against each other but that doesn’t make it a good idea. So, let me get this straight Batman can’t beat Spider-Man but he can beat Captain American what the fudge? I didn’t know my little or pretty pony can put up a fight against Marvel and DC characters. That would explain why boys are watching this series. So yeah, I can understand why this would bother people about this series. I know we have substitutes for death battle like one-minute melee and DBX but they don’t do it for me. Don’t get me wrong there is nothing wrong with those alternatives, but I like how death battle directs their fights for the most part. 

Overall, Death Battle has been around for ten years and this series can do more to make it better.            

The People vs Netflix

The People vs Netflix 

 

Intro: I know so many people have already talked about this, but I don't care, the reason why I'm doing this is that there is something about people's reacting to what Netflix did that bothers me. I'm not saying they shouldn't react the way they did however it's still an issue for me but I'm getting ahead of myself. Also, I want to wait until the legal action taken against Netflix gets resolved before I say anything, but I have a feeling that it won't rule in Netflix's favor. Forgive me if I go off-topic I have to, in order to make my point.  

In case you've been living under a rock, Netflix is facing a lot of backlash over a movie they produce, I'm not going to say the name of the movie because you know what I'm talking about. I haven't seen the movie or the trailers I just saw the poster, looked up summaries of the plot and that was enough for me to understand the outrage. Look whether or not this so-called movie was suppose to be a coming-of-age story or a social commentary on how the media have influence over kids it's overshadowed by the fact that this movie sexualizes children!!! You can tell a story about kids being exposed to sex and sexual exploitation is wrong without committing the act, which is what this movie failed to do. You can do that by dropping hints that it's happening in the movie, or better yet write a book about it. When you do it that way, we won't be subjected to seeing it happen. This movie disgust people to the point where they unsubscribe from Netflix. This affects Netflix to the point where they have to raise the subscription fee. I can't believe that no one who worked on this movie objected to the kids being exposed like this. 

Not only that there are people who are defending this garbage why!?! 

                                                                                                                      

                                                

The reasons people have for defending this movie is that it's misunderstood, you can't judge something without seeing it, Netflix made a mistake and they shouldn't be punished for it. First of all, it doesn't matter if the movie is misunderstood or not it doesn't change the fact that Netflix created child pxxn. Second Netflix should be punished for this mistake because last I checked creating child pxxn is illegal and frowned upon. If a man directed this so-called movie, you better believe he would be thrown under the jail. Speaking of jail time, the state of Texas is filing criminal charges against this company for producing child pxxn. The CEO of Netflix is standing by his decision of greenlighting this movie and agrees with the people who defend it. He should face some consequences for this and Netflix should go out of business for this. The same thing goes for Rotten Tomatoes, how this movie got 87% on their website is beyond me. 

Despite people's outrage over this movie being justified, it doesn't change the fact that this reaction makes them look like hypocrites. Let me ask you this do you think it's a good idea for minors to have babies? If the answer is no then why did we make teen pregnancy a part of our culture over ten or twenty years ago? There have been so many TV shows and documentaries about this at the time, heck Teen MOM is still airing new episodes. If your argument is the point of this show is to discourage teen pregnancy screw that! You're encouraging this behavior by giving them attention, housing and food stamps. What have they done to earn those things?  

If teen pregnancy is frowned upon then why do we make movies about it and give those movies Oscars? 

 
   

                                        

When I was in public and private school the teachers threw a baby shower for pregnant girls what the fudge!?! There is nothing special about being a teen mom or a single mother. Speaking of single mothers do I really have to common on the damage single mothers cause to their kids and everyone else by thinking they can raise kids without a man? What about bullying do you think that's something kids should be subjected to? 

What needs to happen for you to take it seriously?       

   

Does this make you angry? If the answer is yes, then why are you not mad at Hollywood for trivializing it and taking it too far? In Dragon Ball Evolution a bully ran over the main character's bike, in the latest Power Rangers movie a bully tried to snap one of the kid's wrists, in Shazam the bullies hit a disabled kid with his car, in the Flashpoint tv shows a sports team brand one of their teammates and in Cxxxxs the main character stabs her classmate with a pencil. Where's the outrage people? What happened to we need to protect our kids? I have a feeling that some of you who threw a fit over Netflix was involved in the rioting and looting this year. If you were involved, then you don't get to have an opinion about Netflix because you don't have the moral high ground. I understand why people did those things however it doesn't change the fact that you're not setting a good example for your kids, I mean do you want your children to tear up the house because they're upset? If the answer is no, then why are you tearing up everything around you? 

Do you see what I mean when I said people look like hypocrites? Look I'm not trying to make you look disingenuous however you can't have it both ways. You can't be outraged with how Netflix is hurting kids and ignore everyone else doing it. I'm wondering what you're planning for kids who are in the system? I mean I hear people talk about how bad things are for kids who are in social services and foster care. So, what are going to do for them? My point is this Netflix getting in trouble is not a victory if we don't continue to call out people or organizations for abusing and exploiting children. That's all I have to say about the subject for now.