My thoughts on G4TV relaunch

My thoughts on G4TV relaunch  

Intro: I didn't plan on talking about this relaunch because it has been around for over a month now, that's not enough time to comment on how it's doing. Plus, I already talked about this network so I don't have much to say about it now, but something happened last week that could hurt this network's second chance. 

When I learn that G4TV was going to be revived two years ago, I was indifferent to the news. I said that because it's tricky to bring this network back because it lost its novelty over time due to the internet. (Ironically, that's what I missed about the network; the novelty of it.) I mean, we have IGN, Twitch, Machinima at the time, E-Sports, video game communities on social media, and people on the internet who cover video game topics. Plus, people are not watching cable TV like they used to. Comcast (The company behind G4) seems to be aware of this, so instead of returning to cable, they're going to take this relaunch online. I understand why they would go in this direction; however, it's going to be an uphill battle for them because of the competition. Reviving G4TV could work if it returns to its former glory. Plus, I would prefer to have all this video game content under one roof. The relaunch happened on November 16, and it was disappointing because it gave us the same two shows they are X-Play and Attack of the Shows. What made this worse is that we only got half of the host for those shows. That's the problem with reviving this network is that it doesn't have enough content to justify itself.  

This is what last week's schedule looks like. 

 

That's another thing, it's trying to operate like it did when it was on TV, and it doesn't work. Seriously, what's the point of bringing this network back if you're going to do the same thing that got this network canceled in the first place? This wouldn't have angry me if G4 didn't do a montage of what this network used to be like and how it is today. What's stopping this network from bringing back the old shows like Players, Arena, Cheat, Icon, Filter, Code Monkey, etc? Well, I heard that they tried to bring back Screen Savers, but that didn't work. Not only that have people who talk about video game content on the internet host these shows. Doing that would also help make this network relevant and give these people recognition. The only thing they can do to compete with others is to talk about obscure games and review handheld games. I say that because a lot of people don't do that, plus handheld games are no longer a thing after the Nintendo Switch. If G4 encourages more people to play handheld games, then they could make a comeback.     

Now it's time to address the elephant in the room. Last week, one of the new hosts of X-Play, who goes by the name Frosk, went on a must-see rant, and it was a must-see just not for the right reason. Her rant was about addressing sexism in video games. Look, I don't mind her talking about this; however, it wasn't the time or the place for it. She starts off by saying she's happy to be a part of G4 because she grew up watching it. I don't buy that statement for two reasons. First of all, if she did grow up watching this network, she should be talking about how G4 fell from grace and what to do to make it better? Instead of doing that, she's trying to be the next Anita Sarkeesian. I'll get into the second reason later. Then she said she gets backlash about her not being as bangable as Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, the previous host. Then she berates men for saying that they get happy off of seeing those two because it's dehumanizing and weird. She also said that those two women and women in general don't exist to be visually appealing to men. 

First of all, what does men telling you you're not eye candy as the previous host have to do with sexism!?! Second, it's hard for me to comment on the comments she gets because she didn't show us the comments. So, I can't tell if people are trolling you are not. The only comment I saw was Oliva is hot and they deleted it. Why? That wasn't offensive. Because people do get harassed online, and you don't look presentable, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Look, I'm not saying it's OK to be harassed online; however, you can't enter a mostly male-dominated space and not expect them to feel some way about it. Do you think a straight man is not going to get funny looks for working as a fashion designer? Plus, this happens to everyone. You should know this. Are you telling me that you do hear men and women giving each other a hard time for being bad at playing Red Dead Redemption online? 

There are two ways you can deal with it; you can either ignore them or change your image. I wouldn't do the last part because people will think you have an inferiority complex. Also, ignoring people has its limits. This is why I don't like playing games online, because I'm sick of people giving me a hard time for being terrible. Doing that is not helping. Putting your target demographic on blast is not a smart move because you're biting the hand that feeds you. Of course, you're going to be compared to Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb. That's what happens when you replace someone. You don't hear Robert Pattinson complaining about being compared to the other actors who played Bruce Wayne/Batman because that comes with the territory. I understand that talking about getting happy off of seeing an attractive woman can be a bit much; however, you can't throw a dog a bone and not expect the dog to bite. What do you mean by playing with yourself is dehumanizing and weird? That's what men do when they find women attractive. Guess what, women do it too! Her male co-host, especially Adam Sessler, must be Asexual because they also think playing with yourself is weird and encouraging her to say this stuff.  

I hate to burst your bubble, but women do exist to be visually appealing to men and vice versa. We have eyes for a reason. We wouldn't have sex, Hooters, Beauty Pageants, and the human population wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case. She made her rant worse by telling on herself. She admitted that what she's saying is scripted because she can't review video games by herself. Despite reading the same script as everyone else, she gets flak for it. Yes! It does happen to her male co-host, but it's sexist that it happens to her. This is why people don't like you, you're lazy! There are plenty of people on the internet who review video games by themselves. If reviewing games is too much for you, then you're in the wrong profession. Because you're reading someone else's review, it makes you look disingenuous. Really, we should be making a big deal about what she just admitted instead of her calling us sexist. Why are we not watching the person who wrote the review, instead of her? Plus, she gets information wrong. Receiving criticism is not sexist; that comes with being a public figure. How do you expect to get better at your job without feedback? Again, if you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be there. 

The next thing she said is there are people who hate any change that isn't Adam, and brings up that half of the staff are women. (Despite some of them having guy names.) Once again, she talks about fans thinking she ruined this relaunch because men can't sexually objectify her as they did with the previous host. Plus, we would prefer to watch Adam over her is ruining her day, and we are gatekeeping video games. Yeah! People don't like change, especially if those changes are making something worse. Do you mean to tell me that you are above being upset over change? We would rather watch Adam Sessler than you because he's the only face we're familiar with. This relaunch wouldn't stand a chance without him. Plus, we don't know you, and you ruined any chance of getting us to like you because of this rant. Don't get me wrong, Adam is not about criticism; he gets a lot of flak for what he said about Republicans. He despises them so much to the point where he wishes death on his family members who are Republicans. Now, don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but I respect his conviction. I mean, would you take his hate for Republicans seriously if he didn't include his family? 

If half of the staff has the same mindset as you, then I don't see this as a good thing. First of all, you don't get to complain about men not sexually objectifying you when there is a video of you trying to grab a man's butt. I doubt you ask his permission to do that. Second, this is the other reason why I don't think you grew up watching G4TV, because this is a network that caters to men. Of course, it will have attractive women on that network. Why do you think Oliva Munn plays off on how attractive she is when she was on Attack of the Show? If you were watching the WWE, do you want the wrestlers to be sexy? If the answer is yes, then what are you complaining about? This woman clearly doesn't love herself if she did nothing, anyone would say would bother her. If you don't want to be eye candy, that's fine, but you need to have a good personality to be likable. That's what we like about Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, it's because they're familiar with video games, funny, and likable. Them being attractive is a bonus. Really, I think those two get too much credit for being eye candy. I mean, Diana Mizota (One of the hosts of Filter) is visually appealing, but I digress. 

Gatekeeping is not a bad thing because there are people who shouldn't talk about things if they're not knowledgeable about the subject. How can we gatekeep you when you work at a job that talks about video games? She finally ends this rant by saying we should be nicer and grateful that they provide free content for you. If you don't like G4, don't watch it. I'm sorry, but people are not obligated to be nice to you, especially when you haven't given us a reason to. Providing free content is your job; why should we be grateful that you're doing what's expected of you? It's a good thing I'm not her boss; if I was, I would give her a tongue-lashing. First of all, she didn't talk about Red Dead Redemption like she was suppose to. Second, her rant has nothing to do with sexism in gaming. Finally, she alienates the target demographic, and we lost viewers because of you. G4 has a lot of work to do to get back on the fan's good graces. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of G4. Instead of reminding us why we love this network in the first place, you open an old wound and put salt on it. I'm sick of everything being ruined because of politics, because it has no place in the media, sports, and relationships. I would be surprised to see that G4 is still around a year from now. You can't always rely on upsetting the host to get a reaction out of them for views. Overall, bringing G4 back was a mistake because it had its time to shine, and it's hard to go back to what it was.        

My rant about therapist

 My rant about therapist 

 

Intro: In case you're wondering, no! This isn't about my grievances with therapist or thinking that therapy is not beneficial. This post is about their credibility and the pedestal people put them on. Also, there is something else about them that people are either overlooking or didn't think about. I wanted to talk about this sooner, but the topic has become complex. I'll elaborate on that later. Plus, I don't know how much of this profession has changed from its inception to now. I can't verify the changes because I don't know a lot of people who have seen a therapist, even if I did, they can't tell me because of confidentiality. I was going to save this for my overview of the pandemic, but this subject deserves its own post. 

For those of you who have never been to therapy, therapists are people who are licensed in mental health. They listen and help their clients with their problems like communication, behavior, trauma, soul searching, relationships, etc. Basically, they are the voice of reason, someone who is mutual to both sides of the argument. I can't believe people treat therapists like miracle workers. I mean, if you have any problems, the solution is to see a therapist. Society exaggerates on how helpful they are; some people had therapy for years and got nothing out of it. I know building trust takes time, especially when you two are talking about things that you would normally talk about with friends and family. However, where does the line draw? Would you spend a lot of money on something with no results for years? 

Another downside to seeing a therapist for years is that feelings will develop on the woman's and children's end. I'll get back to that later. Also, we don't need them to be our voice of reason; we have friends and family members who can do that. Then again, not everyone has someone to talk to. We might not have this problem if we didn't alienate each other. Once again, I'm getting ahead of myself. The fact that you're telling people to see a therapist tells me that you don't care about the person being in distress, or you don't know how to help him or her. Plus, it doesn't take a genius to know that if someone is mad at you for no reason, that person is looking for trouble, or it's a cry for help. 

For the most part, people know what their issues are why do you think they don't like talking about certain things, like their childhood? Speaking of childhood, that's almost a pointless thing to talk about because, first of all, you're opening up a can of worms. I mean, they have to look at why your parents, peers, school, and neighbors treat you the way they did? Then they have to talk to their parents, and the next, and the next. Second, you're giving your client someone to blame for their problems instead of working past it. I know you have to acknowledge the past to heal or move on from it, but keep it in the past.   

Look, I'm not trying to discredit this profession, but there are limits to therapy. There are some things that you can't fix just by talking it out, like procrastination. If you do procrastinate, you have to figure out do you have a discipline problem or a desire problem? If the doctor told you you'll have diabetes tomorrow if you don't start working out and eating healthy, would you do it? If the answer is yes, then you have a desire problem. Now, if you have a discipline problem, then you need a drill sergeant to light a fire up your butt. If you're on the spectrum or have a personality disorder, therapy can't do much about that because that's the cause of genetics and your environment. They can't fix your genes, but they could do something about the environment. I'll get into that later. All they can do is prescribe medication and help you manage to live with those things. 

Another thing they can't help you erase the pain of losing a loved one or a traumatic event; you have to live with that pain. It's just like breaking a plate; you can crazy glue it back together, but the cracks are still there. Also, your mind can play tricks on you; look at nostalgia, for example. There is a line between memory and imagination; nostalgia plays on that line. This is what bugs me about the Mandela effect because you can use that to gaslight anyone. Your mind can struggle with the conscious and subconscious mind. If you study neuroscience, you know what I'm talking about. 

I get annoyed when I hear someone say F your feelings. Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment; however, it doesn't make it less disingenuous. Everything we do is based on emotions or intuition, and we justify why we feel this way later. Why do you think some people have a hard time explaining why they like or dislike certain foods, clothes, jobs, colors, and jokes? Also, they don't know why they have fetishes, phobias, and why women keep getting with the wrong guy? Look, I'm not saying you can't come up with or have a good reason why you feel a certain way about certain things; however, that's not enough to win others over. We would all be on one accord instead of having wars and segregation if that were the case. Also, it's foolish to argue with people about things they feel strongly about, like sexuality, religion, and politics.        

 

Here's one of the many gripes I have with therapy that is paying for it. No! It's not because I'm cheap, it's that I don't like the idea of anyone making money off of my misery, especially if I don't know how long the process will last. The fact that I have to do that damages your credibility with anything you say to me. I heard someone say the reason why he wants to be a therapist is so that he won't be on the receiving end of the conversation. If you really want to help people, you shouldn't expect anything in return. Even if you did identify what's bothering someone, it's ultimately up to the patient to fix that problem. This is how we fix the money problem if you are not making progress with your patient in three years, your pay should be reduced to 5 or 10%. 

If you don't think coaches should take credit for a player having raw talent, then therapists shouldn't get credit either, especially if you're not going to be by the person's side every day. Really, they should be writing books on how we can do the basic therapeutic stuff without relying on them all the time. I'm not saying that they don't, it's just that therapists don't have clout with the general public. The only therapist we know about ( besides Jack Daniels) is Dr. Phil. Don't worry, I'll talk about that idiot later.  

Another reason why I frown upon paying for therapy is the double standard. I mean, I have to pay someone to help me acknowledge what's wrong with me, but it's illegal to pay women to relieve me of my blue balls. Help me understand this Twilight Zone nonsense. This is why I don't take society making a big deal about mental health seriously. You don't think not having a sex life affects men's mental health? If you want people to talk about their issues, therapy needs more diversity. I would be outraged to have a White therapist because White people play a role in why Black people are so messed up. 

Also, it needs more men because most of the therapists are women in the U.S. Mostly, women benefit from this institution because they love to talk. I'm sorry that's not a fair statement because no one is talking about their addiction to attention and social media as far as I know. To be fair, I can understand why anyone can be addicted to social media. We have to view attention as currency. People want to get noticed, and social media has made it easy for people to notice them. Most people won't be successful if they didn't get the attention of the right people. They can't help them with their love life because women are stubborn about their standards for men. I would respect that if they didn't give men backhanded compliments. 

If a man has a female therapist, that's going to create conflict because men and women are different. Men are not going to take what you have to say seriously because it will cause more harm than good, regardless of whether or not you're Dr. Smith. (She wrote the book called Men on Strike.) I also heard stories of when a female therapist is counseling a couple, she takes the woman's side. This is an issue because therapists are not suppose to take sides, and this doesn't encourage the couple to come back. I will say this to them they need to be mindful of the influence they have on the couple. For example, when a couple fight and one of them keep bringing up what the therapist said, that could cause more harm than good. I'm not saying couples counseling isn't helpful; however, no one likes a third wheel. 

The thing people seem to overlook is how dangerous they can be. Look at the Batman villain Scarecrow; he specializes in phobias; instead of helping people overcome them, he preys on them. They can also play mind games with you by using reverse psychology and gaslighting you. To be fair, a lot of people are guilty of gaslighting in subtle ways, and you can't be the voice of reason without resorting to doing that to some degree. Therapists may not come up with psychological warfare, but they play a role in how the Police, FBI, and CIA torture, I mean, interrogate people. (Dr. John E. Ried is one of them.) Also, am I the only one uncomfortable with hypnotherapy and ECT? Also, they're not that trustworthy. I mean, confidentiality goes out the window if you're involved in a crime or terrorist attack. Confessing a crime to them will open up a can of worms. 

The fact that I can't talk to them about hurting someone or killing myself is a deal-breaker. I say that because there are some things you can't resolve without resorting to violence. Going back to procrastination, I can't see how that can be fixed without having a difficult taskmaster cracking a whip at you to get things done. Do you think what happened at the Capitol would have happened if the guards were armed to the teeth? What about someone being testy about trespassing on your property? Do you think you can get your point across by telling them to get off my property or fire a warning shot at them? 

This makes me wonder how you counsel victims of rape, abuse, and kidnapping? You tell them that it's not their fault that this happens to them, giving them the impression that life is too uncertain to know what could happen. If that's the case, then why is talking about wanting to hurt someone excluded from that? Just because you don't know what could happen, that doesn't mean you should throw caught to the wind, would you drive a car with no airbags?

So, I can think about hurting someone as long as I don't act on it, but I can't talk to a therapist about it. How does that work? I already talked about suicide, so I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want my trust, you have to tell me an embarrassing story about yourself. Also, therapist needs to own up to their mistakes. For example, the late Dr. Wertham blames comic books for why kids are acting up. That's enough to make you look bad, I mean, know what you're talking about. Also, they get upset when someone argues that depression is not the cause of a chemical imbalance in the brain. They just learn that ADHD plays a role in addiction. This makes us question how can you treat addiction if you're still learning about it?  

I want to talk about addiction real quick. Therapists are inconsistent about that as well. I mean, you can't say addiction is a mental illness and then say that anyone could develop an addiction to something. It's either one or the other. Step two of the twelve-step program needs to be changed because not everyone believes or wants to believe in GOD. You don't think that's the reason why 40-60% of people relapse? Also, getting people to believe in GOD at a low point in their lives is something a cult would do. 

If I was running a rehab, I would get the parent involved in the process because everything starts at home. I'm not going to waste my time getting your child better just for him or her to relapse because you don't know what role you play in this. Parents do things to hurt their children unintentionally. For example, if you correct your kids too often, don't be surprised when they procrastinate. They do that because they don't think they can do anything right. So correct them on things that matter.  

I'm surprised no one pointed out that telling kids life isn't fair is damaging to them because you don't know how they will interpret it. Really, it makes parents look manipulative because they say that when it's convenient, not because parents believe life isn't fair. If they did, they wouldn't complain about anything. This causes a lot of problems between me and my mother. Whenever something messes up happens to me, my response for not telling her is Life isn't fair, remember? 

My point is this; if your child has a substance abuse problem, you can't rest on your morals. If you want your child to get better, you have to be a better parent that mean figuring out what role you play in him or her having this issue. Plus, coming to terms with the fact that the child you lost to substance abuse, you're not getting him or her back.        

        

To the people who put therapists on a pedestal, why didn't you go to them after everything that happened when the pandemic started, instead of letting those things rob you of your joy and sanity? To be fair, we had problems before the pandemic, like people projecting their anger and fears onto each other. We wouldn't have wars, xenophobia, the MeToo movement, people in power being greedy, and White people screwing Black people over if that wasn't the case. Do I have to explain the domino effect that these things create? 

People have become more thin skin in the past five years, maybe longer, to the point where they can't handle someone disliking their videos online. Dr. Haidt talked about how society is making kids fragile. I don't disagree with that; however, almost everyone is fragile about something. That's why we have rules, vote for certain people or surround ourselves with like-minded people to maintain our bubble. It's hard to fix this problem if we don't know where to draw the line. 

We use therapy to alienate each other by saying you need therapy. Am I the only one who finds this insulting? If being flawed is part of the human condition, then who are you to tell me what I need? Most people don't know themself as far as why they like or dislike certain people, places, and things. Heck, you don't know why you turned out the way you did physically and mentally. You can use statistics and biology as an argument as to why you are the way you are, but how do you know that applies to you? My point is, if everyone is screwed up, then no one is. Granted! Certain behaviors are frowned upon in society, but it doesn't matter if we trivialize them. If your attitude is that it's not a big deal that someone experienced the ugly side of life, then we shouldn't make a big deal out of it when we see it on the news. (Heck, we shouldn't broadcast it.) Also, how people carry themselves is either beyond our understanding or beyond the person's control.             

Everything that has happened before and after the pandemic makes therapists look bad. I mean, how do you help people cope when they get scared and angry? Heck, Star Wars tells you nothing good comes out of having those emotions, so why are you giving into them? Another thing that makes them look bad is the mass shootings. I mean, whenever it happens, you say the shooter struggles with mental illness. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting sick of that excuse because you're giving them an out. Also, you make people feel uneasy being around them. How many mass shootings do we need to say that the shooters are evil? If that's not evil, I don't know what is. I'm sorry I shouldn't vilify people who have mental problems, but I don't understand how they can get access to firearms.

This leads to the elephant in the room when it comes to therapy because there are so many of them, it's hard to choose. They have the same credibility as social workers, relationship experts, and money gurus. I mean, if you were good at fixing the problem, you would be out of a job. What makes this worse is that they're not on one accord on certain things, like they're discussing how long should you wait to be romantically involved with your client after the fact? Women are more likely to develop feelings for the therapist than men because they're more talkative. I understand why this is frowned upon because the therapist will look like they're grooming the client. The solution to this problem is this get therapists who are unattractive and old enough to be the client's parents. 

Speaking of parents, children will view the therapist as a parental figure. Now I can't think of any way around that. Another thing therapists are competing with influencers. Influencers also face credibility I'm going to use monks as an example. Let's say they give advice on how to find common ground with other people, but they isolate themselves from the world and live with like-minded people. It doesn't matter how sound your advice is if you don't practice what you preach; people won't take you seriously. 

Dr. Phil could have done something about the many voices on mental health. Really, he shouldn't have Doctor in the title of his name because A he hasn't practiced psychology in over thirty years, and B he either lost or gave up his license in 2006. I don't watch the Dr. Phil show. When I do, I can't take him seriously because he offers little to no therapeutic services to his guests. When he does it's overshadowed by him trying to be entertainment. That's why he takes sides, berates his guest, shows off his ego, and gives his famous what were you thinking line. When ABC called him out for doing more harm than good, his response was to change the channel. Are you kidding me!?! You claim to be a psychologist, which means you have a responsibility to the people in this profession. That should come before you becoming the next Mr. Ed. If you're going to do a disservice to this profession, then you shouldn't be called Doctor. 

If I were Dr. Phil, I would run this show the way Dr. OZ runs his show, as far as making people aware of mental illness, addictions, manipulative people, the shadow self, and what we can do about them? Heck, have a different therapist host the show, and if people like him or her, then that person should get their own show. If therapists really want to help people, they should get involved in politics, as far as being the advisors of political figures. Really, they should be the gatekeepers of the positions of power. What's the point of having a therapist in law enforcement, school, and the government if they can't spot people who will cause trouble? 

If someone wants to be in a position of power psychiatric evaluation is not enough; you need to use reverse psychology to expose them. Here's an example, ladies, if you see a man who's out of shape but you see him going to the gym trying to get in shape, would you want him to approach you? If the answer is no, then you're not wife material. If you won't be by a man's side at his worst, then you don't deserve him at his best. Also, you can have them do exercises to test their conviction. Naruto has done this. 

People who want to be parents also need to be evaluated because their upbringing plays a role in the problems we have; you wouldn't be asking about their childhood if that wasn't the case. If they don't like that, then don't bring your kids to therapy if they become a victim of rape, abuse, and kidnapping. If you want to be a single mother, you should at least read a book called Strong Mothers and Strong Sons by Dr. Meg.                       

             

Overall, therapy is overrated, and therapists need to be more proactive.  

My thoughts on the Book of Boba Fett

 My thoughts on the Book of Boba Fett 

 

This is another example of nostalgia bait. I mean Disney is miking this franchise to death. Don't believe me then why are we getting an Obi-Wan and Ashoka series? Since we're on the subject I have no interest in watching those series because Obi-Wan was suppose to keep a low profile so he won't attract the empire's attention. Does it really matter what he's been up to for the past nineteen years? As far as Ashoka goes, she shouldn't exist in live-action movies! 

I'm also not excited to watch this series because I still can't get over the fact that this character shouldn't be alive! The same thing goes for his lovely right-hand woman. Also, I thought the point of the Mandalorian series was to make up for how the Star Wars films wasted this character. Speaking of the Mandalorian that series did give us enough time to get a grasp on Boba Fett's characterization. The only reason why this character is popular is because of his design and mystique. The books and comics didn't do this character any justice. I say that because he was portrayed as crazy in those sources. 

The trailer for this show didn't get me hooked because it turns this character into a mobster. I'm not kidding about that this trailer feels like this is going to be the Star Wars version of the God Father. Boba Fett is suppose to be a Bounty Hunter why can't he stay a Bounty Hunter? If you can't go in that direction because of the Mandalorian then why did you bother being this character back from the dead? Boba said Jabba rules with fear, I want to rule with respect. First of all, casual Star Wars fans don't know what kind of ruler he was and do you think they care? Second, why is he so interested in his organization? What's so special about Tatooine? Also, why did he wait five years to do this!?! 

Yeah, I will be skipping this series because it seems like the writers could turn boba into a good guy or not. Bounty Hunters are not known for having a moral compass they do what they are hired to do. That's what bothered me about The Mandalorian, I mean the writers made him a good guy instead of a moral grey character. That's all I have to say about this series. What do you think of it?        

Stargirl season two review

 Stargirl season two review 

 

Intro: Did anyone else think that the subtitle for this season should have been nightmare on Blue valley instead of Summer School? 

Stargirl season two: This season takes place six months after the event from last season and the gang is looking for what's left of the ISA. One day they learn that the of the former members of the ISA called the Shade is in Blue Valley, he's looking for a McGuffin that contains a nemesis of the JSA called Eclipso. Meanwhile Cindy Burman returns wanting to finish what she started. During her fight with the new JSA Eclipso is free to reign terror on Blue Valley, so Courtney and the others have to stop him. 

This season feels like an overextended Power Rangers episode without the Megazord fights. I say that because of how cheesy this season is and Eclipso could have been defeated sooner if characters did "censor" instead of fighting him. This season sets up plot points but doesn't focus on them. This season doesn't have much going on beyond characters stuff and that was hit or miss. I don't get why Summer School is the subtitle for this season when all of them are not in Summer School. There is one episode that made me question how the Green Lantern's powers work? The writers should have saved Eclipso for another season and given the legacy characters on the villain's side a chance to shine. This season introduce us to a new character that could play a big role in season three. I'm not fond of the fact that he's a pushover, do I really have to explain why. To the creator of this series please don't introduce us to another Black character if you're not going to treat them right. 

Courtney/Stargirl has an arc about balancing being Stargirl and a regular girl but the writers rushed it so what was the point? Also, the writers gave her a love interest but that didn't get enough attention. 

I like what this season has done with Yolanda/Wildcat. She's beating herself up over what she did last season and it's a big deal to her because of her upbringing. What annoys me about this is it got resolved out of nowhere. 

Thunderbolt (a member of the OG JSA) is Mr. Personality who grants wishes. You can't make any wish you have to be pacific about what you wish for and he's drawn to a certain type of person.    

Cindy is out of blood in this season. What the creator did with her at the end of the season bugs me because it has no build-up to it. 

Richard/The Shade is a wildcat in this season. I say that because Pat and the others didn't know if he can be trusted because he plays both ends against the middle. What surprised me about this character is how powerful he is.  

Eclipso (the main villain) is basically Freddy Krueger You'll see what I mean when you watch this season. He may not be scary, but he's creepy. This bad guy feeds off of people's negative emotions like fear and anger. Do you see what I mean by cheesy? I was let down by him I don't mean he's a terrible villain it's just that people make it seem like he's too powerful to stop and I don't buy it. I wish the writers would go in a different direction with this character, I can't elaborate on that without spoiling anything. Also, the way he taunts Beth in episode 8 makes me sick! I wouldn't have a problem with it if he taunts everyone the same way. 

What I like about this season is that we learn more about the JSA and its downfall. This season sets things up for the next season. Overall, this season was better than last season and that's saying a lot. With that said I still recommended this. 

My thoughts on the lightyear movie

My thoughts on the lightyear movie 

A teaser trailer was released for a Buzz Lightyear movie and it took me by surprise for two reasons. First of all, I didn't think we would get a movie on this character considering we had a cartoon series centered around him twenty years ago called Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. What made us interested in Buzz is the world he came from and this series gave us an idea of the world he came from. It was basically a space police show with comedy. So, I don't see the point of this movie. To be fair I heard that John Lasseter (The man who wrote the story for all four movies and directed the first two films.) didn't like this cartoon because it didn't fit his vision for this character. That could be true because the show is not on Disney Plus, the series hasn't been revived, celebrated and it's not on Blu-Ray. It's safe to assume that Toy Story fans don't like this series, heck no one remembers it. Even though this series could have been better I thought the show was OK and it's a shame that this show's contributions to this franchise was for nothing.   

Second, making this movie is a risk. I say that because this is different from most of the Pixar films because they have gimmicks to them. What if toys have feelings, what if cars have feelings and what if feelings have feelings? This looks like a straight-up sci-fi film. Yes! We had this with Wall-E but the main focus of that movie is robots with feels. (Sidenote I wouldn't mind a Wall-E reference in this movie.) Another red flag with this movie is John Lasseter is not involved with this movie because he's no longer a part of Pixar due to him being a victim of the Metoo movement. ( My editor corrected me about that.) Oh! Never mind. I don't know if this movie will stay true to what Mr. Lasseter what to do with this character. Not only that he wanted to do spin-off movies of other Toy Story characters. I don't know if this movie will be a precursor to those films will have to wait and see. Finally, this movie looks like it's going to be an origin story for Buzz and Star Command. I'm guessing this movie takes place before the first Toy Story movie. First of all, Hollywood is not batting a thousand when it comes to origins and prequels. Second, Buzz may be a popular character in the Toy Story franchise he's not that interesting, I mean he's a boy's scout. 

We all know characters like that don't bring in billions of dollars at the box office. 

Not only that they rarely do a good job at coming up with good stories around popular characters. What made him appealing was him being delusional about being the real Buzz Lightyear and not coming to terms with being a toy. Fans love this so much that the writers brought it back in the next two movies. I don't know if the director did it in the fourth movie because I didn't watch it because I think Pixar wasted that movie. I mean it could have been about the toys having to compete with video games by having this movie do a crossover with Wreck-it Ralph. Doing that would help Buzz understand where Woody was coming from when Andy ignored him for Buzz. I'm sorry I didn't mean to go off-topic. My point is this when it comes to characters like this less is more. With that said I'm interested in seeing what Pixar will do with this character. 

As far as this teaser trailer goes it was excellent! It got me excited to see this movie because we don't know how things will play out. Plus, the cartoon didn't explain everything about Buzz's world like how the galactic alliances was formed and how Star Command went from space exploration to patrolling space? We see Buzz wondering what's in outer space, learning about the ship he's going to fly, test piloting that ship, crash land on a plant, come across aliens and maybe Empire Zurg's robots. There is a scene in the trailer that will remind you of Star Wars. Seeing that kind of annoys me because I don't want to be reminded of how Disney screwed up that franchise. 

I hope this movie deals with time travel because the movie hints at that, plus how do you explain Buzz's signature line to infinity and beyond? This movie could reinforce that Disney didn't like the cartoon that I mentioned earlier because I didn't see any references to that cartoon in this trailer. Buzz Lightyear is voiced by Chris Evans. I think he's a fine pick for this role due to both Buzz and Captain America Being noble characters. To the people who are not happy that Tim Allen is not returning to voice this character, there is something you need to consider. As you get older not only your body won't be the same your voice won't be either. If that's the case with Mr. Allen, then I can understand why he's not voicing this character. I have nothing else to say about this trailer because I don't want to risk spoiling the movie for myself or anyone else. People are already coming up with theories about this movie connected to Wall-E. This is nostalgic bait done right!    

My Thoughts on DC Fandom

My Thoughts on DC Fandom

 

Intro: I was going to talk about the Flash movie, but DC Fandom didn't say much about that movie, so I decided to talk about the event itself. 

This year's DC fandom was disappointing as far as not having a lot of movies and TV Shows to look forward to. I mean how can we be excited for the next Shazam, Aquaman, Black Adam and Blue Beetle movies if we don't have trailers to give us an idea of what those movies are going to be about? Why have the cast from Superman and Lois at this event if they're not going to talk about season two? I will say this for season two I want to see Superman fight cosmic characters. The cast of the Flash series is talking about the Flash finally getting his gold boots. My response to this is who gives a carp!?! Out of all the problems that series have you think Barry getting his gold boost would fix them? This isn't the Wizard of OZ in fact he doesn't deserve the gold boots because of how badly the show is doing. Wait a minute! The finale season of the Flash is coming out next month and you don't have a trailer for it? If I was looking forward to this season, I would be bothered by this. 

What really bothers me about this year's DC fandom is that no one is talking about the Nightwing movie. The script is ready and they cast someone to play the character so what's the hold-up? This wouldn't annoy me if A Alfred did get his own series. Don't get me wrong I love Alfred but not enough where he should get his own show because he works better as a supporting character. B They're working on a Batgirl movie what the fudge!?! I hope we get a Nightwing trailer next year. (Well, that might not be possible considering that Hollywood could go on strike.)

Also, this event doesn't talk about the Green Lantern series on HBO Max. I'm not going to talk about the new trailer for the Batman because A I already talked about that movie last year. and B that's the only thing you care about. I'm sorry I take back that statement we don't care about Batman, we wouldn't have killed him if we did. What I mean by that is we have so many different versions of this character where we don't have a definitive version of him.  

Now onto the Flash movie, the Barry Allen character could make or break the movie for me. I know I said you could forgive the main character for not being engaging if the story is good but that's not always the case. Plus, characters and stories works hand and hand. This Barry Allen/ The Flash is suppose to be the comic relief character but he comes off as odd. The Snyder cut toned him down but that didn't change my views on this character. 

Sadly, we didn't get a trailer for the Flash movie because they are still working on it, but we did get some footage from the movie. The footage we got is not enough for me to comment on the movie most of it takes place in an abandoned Wayne Manor from the 1989 Batman film. We have one conversation between Barry and Bruce about Barry's time traveling. Here's what we know about this movie so far, it's loosely based on Flashpoint, more than one Batman is going to be in it, Supergirl is in it and another Flash. Who role these characters will play in the movie is up in the air. I don't know if I will see this movie because we weren't given enough footage that would make me want to see this movie. 

The only good thing I can say about this event is that we're getting another season of Young Justice. That's all I have to say about this event do you think it's good or could have been better? 

My Bright Samuria Soul review

 My Bright Samuria Soul review

Intro: OK, what’s the point of this movie if it not going to make up for the last film?

Bright Samurai Soul: The movie takes place in 1876 in Japan and Samuria and Orcs are fighting over an elf who has a magic wand. An elf girl name Sonia manages to escape and got someone from each side to take her somewhere where she can be safe. So, the two have to protect her and get to her destination before outside forces use her to start Armageddon.  

This is basically the same movie but with a different look and location. That’s one of many things that let me down about this movie. I thought this being an animated film set in a different location would help but it didn’t. I mean why have these creatures in Japan if they treat them the same way Americans do? The movie also suffers from a lack of world-building, seriously what’s the point of having these different creatures if we don’t get their backstory? I wouldn’t have minded the story being simply if we got character development and if the story wasn’t so bland. 

The movie could also use some light-hearted moments because it feels lifeless. Something happens in the climax that undermines the tension in the movie. The soundtrack bugs me because it doesn’t match the setting of the film. The animation is kind of stiff. The movie could have been about how power corrupts absolute but that didn’t happen. I don’t have much to say about the characters because the movie hasn’t done much with them. Plus, they are unlikeable which makes it hard for me to care about the story.

Izon is a lost and broken Ronin and we get flashbacks that explains why he’s like this.  

Raiden is an Orc who looking for a way out of a life of crime. I like how he and Izon parallel each other because both of them are looking for redemption.   

Sonia is a typical whiny kid.

I like the action scene in the movie and the foreshadowing in the film. The art style is fine. Overall, this is another failed attempt to make something out of this I.P.

Rating = Trash  

My thoughts on Marvel's What if ...?

My thoughts on Marvel's What if ...?

 

The people who worked on this series should be ashamed of themselves for how this series turned out. That's saying a lot considering I wasn't expecting much from this show. The only thing I want is for it to be fun and it's not. For those of you who don't know what this show is it's based on a comic book of the same name. It's about a bunch of what if scenarios about what would happen if things played out differently in the MCU and the domino effect it creates.  

Sadly, we didn't get that, instead, we get characters switching places with each other for the most part. Doing that didn't change much of what happened in the MCU because most of the events played out the same. That's what bugs me about this series it makes no sense that things would still happen as in the original films. On the other hand, that's not always the case. For example, in episode 4 Dr. Strange lost his love interest in the car crash instead of his hands. Despite that, he still learns the mystic arts why!?! 

In episode 2 T'Challa switches places with Star-Lord and he's treated like a GOD. I'm not kidding about that everyone is kissing up to him. If this is the show's way of paying respect to the actor who played this character that's fine. The problem with this is the writers are overdoing it plus T'Challa is not like this. Just because the stories the creators are telling don't take place in the main timeline doesn't mean they should be lazy about it. Also, it opens up a can of worms about what was established in the main timeline. 

Episode 7 is about what would happen if Thor was an only child? All we got is him partying like a frat boy. How does that connect to him not having Loki in his life? Episode 3 was interesting because it was about someone killing the Avengers. When you learn who did it and why you're going to be outraged because this person's motivation makes no sense. The only original thing this show did is the zombie episode and that was awful. What ruined that episode is that it's trying to be funny which hurts the tone and the seriousness of the situation.

Well, to be fair this is a common problem with the MCU. Plus, the zombies are not as threatening as there were in the comics. I also notice some SJW moments in this show. How this series treats Thanos makes me sick! What this show has done with Uatu (The narrator of this show.) makes him look bad. There are two things we know about this character that is he sees and know everything. He can't interfere with what's going on in the universe. He didn't foresee one thing that was going to happen and he broke his rule of not getting involved. Yes! He did this in the comics, but he had no reason to do it here. 

I could have enjoyed that last two episodes if they were written better. The last two episodes are about what would happen if Ultron won? What bothers me about those episodes is that things shouldn't have played out the way they did in those episodes. I like how Steve and Peggy interact with each other in the first episode because this is something that the first Captain America film was missing. How this show slaps Captain Marvel around has me grinning. Overall, this series is a waste of time. You're better off watching the how it should have ended videos because they were better than this. Speak of them in order for season two to work Marvel Studios need to hire them to write season two. 

My thoughts on the Matrix Resurrections

 My thoughts on the Matrix Resurrections 

 

Before I get into the trailer, I want to talk about the Matrix as a franchise. This franchise made an impact on pop culture from 1999 to 2005. We had TV shows and movies that used bullet time and copied scenes from the films. Plus, we had a handful of video games. Yes! This wasn't the first movie with the machines taking over scenario or have us question reality in general, but it's done in a way that appeals to the general public. After that, it wasn't forgotten; it just wasn't talked about that much. The term red and blue pill is popular with men because they use this as a way to view life, people, and relationships. There are other pills that they use, like purple, white, and black pill. I already reviewed this trilogy, so I'm not going to repeat how I feel about it. 

I was surprised to learn that we're getting another Matrix film because no one asked for this movie, as far as I know. Also, we got a trailer for this movie late. Whether that was intentional or not, that was a smart move considering how bad Hollywood is at doing trailers these days. The last movie ended is another reason why this trailer took me by surprise. I'm not saying it's not possible to tell a story after the third film; however, the creators wasted any story they could have told with the last two films. As for this trailer, I liked it, but that's not saying much; it made references to the past films. There is a scene in the trailer where Neo is in the tub with a rubber duck on his head. That cracked me up, I mean, what's a grown man doing with that? The trailer gave mostly action, and we have no idea what the story is for the most part. Heck, we don't know what's going on outside the matrix. I hope we don't get another trailer or teaser because less is more. 

The one thing that bothered me about this trailer is that it's not subtle about anything the trailer showed us. For example, I know that Neo's therapist is going to be a foil for Neo because A the actor who's playing him is well known and B he's wearing blue glasses. Do you see what I mean?  There are red flags with this movie, like it continues where the last film left off. Making a movie that's part of a film series that ended or was discontinued don't turn out well most of the time. Plus, when you do that, you run the risk of a franchise losing its novelty. Speaking of losing novelty, is anyone else tired of the main character not having any memory of his past story? Also, Trinity is alive. How is that possible? You can argue that Neo died in the last film, too, but the movie didn't confirm that. This movie looks like it will be a remake of the first film. I say that because the trailer has rehashed some of the scenes from the first movie. This is not always a bad thing if the directors does them differently or they parallel with the first film. 

However, this makes me ask why not reboot this franchise, considering Morpheus is played by a different actor? Wait what!?! Rebooting this franchise can be hard to do because what made the first film work is that it was stylish as far as mixing different genres together; it's hard to replicate that. Well, the director seems to be aware of this trailer has scenes from the first film, I mean, there are clips from that movie in the trailer. Finally, the director Lana Wachowski, her and her brother didn't have the best track record when it comes to movies, this could be a cry for help. Considering what she use to be, I wonder if she's in the right state of mind to do this movie. I'll leave it at that. The biggest problem I have with the Matrix films is the characters; I mean, they're not engaging enough to be invested in them. Whenever we see Neo reuniting with Trinity or Morpheus, I didn't care because they came off as bland characters in the past. In order for this film to work, that issue needs to be fixed. Well, I could forgive bad characterization if the story is good. 

We had movies where the main character overshadows the story    

and vice versa. 

The only way this movie could exist if the truce is broken. That could work because I want to see both the humans and the machines being conflicted about freeing people's minds from the matrix. We saw what happened when someone isn't ready to accept reality in the first film, Cypher (One of Morpheus's old crew members) killed some of the crew because he wasn't happy with reality. This movie should continue the theme of enlightenment vs comfort because A it's not clear cut, and B that's relevant considering what's going on with free speech or lack thereof. Plus, it wasn't displayed well in the past, as far as not hearing other character's points of view on the issue. The writers tried in the past films, but it wasn't done well, if you ask me. I was let down that we got no bullet time scenes in the trailer, and the Matrix doesn't have a green atmosphere. I hope it's in the movie. 

With all that said, I do have theories as to why Morpheus hasn't aged and why Neo and Trinity is still alive? I don't want to risk spoiling the movie, so I'll keep it to myself. But I will say this, Trinity better not be a clone, and the last three movies better not be a dream because that will make me mad. I might give this movie a chance, oh, how am I kidding, I'm not falling for the nostalgia trap! The real reason why this movie is made is to promote a feminist agenda, just like in Star Wars and The Terminator. I notice that in the trailer. Basically, this movie will be just like the first film, but not as good. That's all I have to say about this trailer for now.             

My Superman & Lois review

My Superman & Lois review 

 

Intro: I can't believe I was suckered into watching this series. After seeing how the CW mistreat Superman, I didn't want to watch this show out of principle. What made me change my mind was that I learn that this isn't a CW show. I mean this series was written and produced by HBO Max. (Allegiantly) CW is just airing it, it's not fair to not give this show a chance because of what network it's on. However, I wish they cast different people to play the main characters to separate themselves from Superman and Lois from the CW shows, but I digress. So did this series give Superman justice or was this a waste of time let's find out... 

Superman and Lois: This show is centered on Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane's life as parents. Being parents becomes difficult when the boys learn about a family secret that affects one of them. On top of that, something tragic happened to Clark that cause him and his family to move to Smallville. Meanwhile, there is a conspiracy in Smallville that could endanger the world and Superman has a target on his back. So, Superman has to figure out who's after him and stop the conspiracy before it's too late. 

This show gave us the best adaption of Superman we've had in a long time! The show took inspiration from Superman rebirth and I notice some references to the source material. I'm impressed with the production value of this series because it looks like it was made on a movie budget. Making a show around Superman's family could be problematic, I was worried that this series would focus more on the family drama than the Superman stuff. Thankfully that's not the case here, hopefully, it won't be the case in the future. The writers separate these elements and not have one overshadow the other most of the time. Speaking of the boys I'm glad that the writers help us separate the two, so we won't have to deal with the brothers switch places cliche. I would prefer the boys to be ten instead of teenagers, doing that would give the show less focus on the typically teenage tropes. Moving to Smallville also helps the family dynamic.  

Episode 11 is the best episode of the season because it works as a love letter that reintroduces us to this character. The theme of this season is nature vs nurture. We see those themes being explored by using loyalty and the use of power as underline themes. The series also deals with other subjects like Journalistic integrity, Capitalism and how the past affects the present. Remember when I said that you can do a serious or dark Superman story without making the character that way? This show is an example of how to do that, take notes Mr. Synder because this is how it's done! Not only that this series feels like an apology letter to anyone who was disappointed with Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice. I say that because this show handled scenes and plot points from both films better than those movies did. Before I talk about the characters, I want to say that this series surprised me in that arena. We think these characters are stereotypes but there more compelling than that. 

Clark Kent/Superman is similar to the one the late Mr. Reeves played. What makes this character different is that when he's Clark he's not as clumsy or timid and when he's Superman he doesn't come off as cheesy. (Well, that depends on the viewer.) I appreciate that he has one moment of character development. Giving Clark/Superman a family helps humanize him because we see him trying to balance being Superman and being a father. Sidenote if this doesn't make people stop complaining about Superman being unrelatable nothing will. 

What bugs me about this character is that he did something reckless and stupid in episode 3. Also, the writers don't seem to know what to do with the Clark Kent character, he doesn't do much to push the story forward. I have gripes with the Superman suit, I don't think the design is terrible but it's missing his signature red trucks. Plus, it has fake muscles on it because the actor is not big enough to fit in the suit. Another thing there are times where Superman seems to be too fast.       

I like what this show has done with Lois Lane! In the past, Lois was portrayed as a sassy report who jumps before she looks and she's fond of Superman. This show has done more with her, I mean we get her backstory of her being an army brat, she struggles to find her place in Smallville and she shows a wide range of emotions. Another thing I appreciate about this Lois is she's drawn to Clark instead of Superman. The reason why is because Superman unintentionally made her job difficult. She finds Superman off-putting because of that. This is refreshing considering that she treats Clark like crap in the past. We learn something awful happened to Lois and the writers wasted it. They could have used it to show why you shouldn't prove your kids to wrath. 

Johnathan Kent (One of the twin sons of Clark and Lois.) is a people person. You feel bad for him because things are not working out in his favor when he gets to Smallville. That's why he becomes a handful for Clark and Lois. The only complaint I have with him is his brother Jordan Kent did something to get him out of his shell, but it involves stepping on his brother's toes. I know John is trying to be the bigger person however, this was warrant an argument.   

Jordan Kent is the opposite of Johnathan as far as keeping to himself and an outcast. Part of the reason why is because he has mental problems. That's what annoys me about this character I mean why establish that about this character if the show doesn't focus on that? 

Sarah Cushing is a good supporting character to Johnathan and Jordan. She's also a troubled girl. I wish the show would show us her problems instead of telling us. Also, she didn't make the best first impression on me. 

Kyle Crushing (Sarah's father) may come off as a hotheaded douchebag but he's going through a hard time. Plus, he has Smallville's best interest in mind. 

Lana Lang (Sarah's mother) is someone who's stuck in Smallville. She loves Smallville but she wants to do more with her life.     

Gen. Lane (Lois Lane's father.) is a standard soldier who puts duty above his family. This creates fractions between him, Lois and Clark/Superman.   

I don't have much to say about the stranger because he's someone who has a vendetta against Superman for understandable reasons. The writers did something else with this character that will take Superman fans by surprise. (I'm mad at myself for not figuring it out sooner because I should have seen it coming.) Something happens at the end of the season that took away some of the emotional weight of his backstory.      

 

Morgan Edge (the main villain) is a brilliant, manipulative and ruthless businessman. He's not only a good foil for Lois and Superman, he also parallels with Superman. What drives me nuts about him is the twist involving him. I don't think it's bad it's just that he's already similar to a Superman villain and now he reminds me of another one. Plus, he turns into a new baddie towards the end of the show and we don't have enough time to appreciate that. Really, I'm getting sick of the two bad guys he started off as because they're overused. That's a shame considering that they didn't get proper representation most of the time. Another thing his plan opens up a can of worms. 

      

One of the problems I have with this series is the actions scenes, there not terrible they were just lackluster. Episode 12 could and should have been the finale episode if it wasn't for some loose ends. Speaking of episodes episode 3 could have been better if it addresses society's hypocrisy on fairness. I was outraged that this network had to make this show connect to their universe because it did a good job at separating itself from that. I notice two subtle moments of feminism. The show also lacks world-building, I mean Superman has been around for years but most of his villains are not mentioned, the fortress of solitude doesn't have much inside of it and we don't see Jimmy Olsen. Speaking of worldbuilding I wish Prof. Hamilton was in this show to make up for how Man of Steel wasted him. A minor complaint is the title of the show it should have been called Superman Family because that's what it is. 

Overall, this is a series that's too good for this network! I would recommend this if you wondered what a sequel series to Lois and Clark the new adventures of Superman would look like.