Random blog post: Comics and a couple of games

I recently read Secret Origin #3 and I hated it. This series has been so far celebrated for reasons I just don't get; I don't think it's bad, but it's pretty formulaic. People say it tells the story really well, but it's less engaging than, say, Birthright. It doesn't help that EVERYTHING in this book is a retread to concepts we've seen at least once before in other Superman interpretations and maybe it wouldn't be too bad if the damn thing wasn't THREE YEARS TOO LATE. This confusing reboot happened three years ago; we were suffering from a lack of coherent framework, trying to guess what the continuity was and make sense out of the actual stories we've been reading. Finally we get the origin and it's a two-page-featurette, a bloody wiki page spread into a hyped mini-series.

And what about the actual issue? A ham-fisted delivery of a dystopic Metropolis, a Lex Luthor who only barely bothers with keeping up appearances and Clark... oh poor Clark. As if seeing Christopher Reeve on page wasn't creepy enough (and keep in mind I actually like Gary Frank's artwork), we have a good deal of movie elements slapped on the bloody thing and it just doesn't work. Clark is overly clumsy. This doesn't come from the comics; it's one of the movie's trademarks. In the Golden Age, Clark was a dynamic reporter, who only pretended to be weak-kneed and cowardly whenever he had to directly hide his Superman identity; most of the time it was when he actually had to change to Superman!

In the Silver Age, when he was considerably toned down, he wasn't that dramatically clumsy either; in fact, he was barely there. Practically invisible, usually he'd show up at the start and maybe the end of the issue to provide some in-joke or set up the premise of the story in a thought-bubble. In the Bronze Age he was a newscaster for WGBS. Don't even get me started on the Iron/Steel/Modern Age. Even in Birthright, he was acting out a very mild-mannered person, but he wasn't in danger of falling flat on his ass with every bloody step he took.

And in the movies it worked; why? Because it was the movies. The name of the game there is action. You had a good actor literally acting the whole thing out. But seeing two pages of Clark Kent barely able to stand is painful. There is this nice little moment with Lois, who is about the only thing that's really good in this book, but it doesn't really work after that intro. Also, Superman's first appearance? Lois stupididly slips of the roof of Lexcorp, taking a helicopter with her. Sounds familiar? Superman rips his shirt off rather unimpressively, then flies up and catches her. And then he catches the helicopter, exactly like he did in the movie. And it doesn't look good; just because something works in one medium, at one time, it doesn't mean it'll work everywhere. Catching the helicopter in the movie is iconic, because it was a movie in 1978. It was unlike everything done before, it had the John Williams theme playing in the background, we all love it; but it was the result of many different things combined. Look at that page in the book; it's so... underwhelming. It barely even makes sense; could you really catch a helicopter like that safely? Wouldn't it break? The way he catches it, you'd think it's made out of feathers. You probably wouldn't have given it a second though back then, but does it really fly now? Birthright's Superman introduction was an homage to STM, but it was different enough to be its own thing and it looked better too:

Superman's first appearance in "Superman: Secret Origin"

Superman's first appearance in "Superman: Birthright"

So what is good about it? Lois, like I said. Leaving aside the fact that Reeve Superman is starting to get a little creepy, the artwork's good. And the dialogue isn't bad; I especially enjoyed Superman's awkward quips when he shows up for the first time; though I'm not crazy about the "maybe I made a mistake" BS at the end of the issue.

Look, I'm not a critic. I don't know shit about comic books and literature outside of whatever I could possibly know as part of the readership. And as part of the readership and as someone who actually has to pay for his comic books, probably more than most out there, I feel overwhelmingly disappointed by a hyped-up, "definitive" origin that's published three years too late, because DC can't plan ahead anything that doesn't have the word 'Crisis' in the title. If you can't do anything original with a project such as this, you might as well skip it altogether.

So... anything good in comics? In light of the disappointment that Secret Origin is, I find myself somewhat baffled and yet excited about the recent "Earth One" graphic novels DC announced a couple of days ago. They're supposed to be similar to Marvel's 'Ultimates' line, new on-going series for Batman and Superman in a different continuity. The artwork is... it's promising, though I'm not entirely sold on either yet and the attempt to 'modernize' the characters is one that can turn to either gold or crap, so I'm trying not to get my hopes too high. With Batman currently absent from his books for who-knows-how-long and Superman in legal hell (there are several theories out there that this 'modernization' has a lot to do with the Siegels' claims over elements of the origin), it's nonetheless an interesting experiment.

Still, you have to grin at the fact that -seperate continuity or not- we're getting yet another Superman origin not long after Secret Origin will be over.


What else... what else... oh yeah. Games. Lately I've been playing two titles: The Sims 3 and Dragon Age: Origins. A few words about each:

- The Sims 3: I think this was the first time I actually went back to a Sims title. I always found the games fairly enjoyable, but just not my kind of thing, so I played a couple of days and then never remembered they existed. So it says a lot about how abysmal my life is that I go back to play a life simulator, where I can be whatever I want to be. But really, it's good fun. I'm not sold in the whole 'leave your house' mechanic. It's decent, a nice way to spice things up, but the day passes by so fast that I don't really care enough to leave the house; the character needs to sleep for 8 hours and then work for another 8, balance friendship, romantic relationships etc. and if you make the mistake of starting a family... oh boy, good luck with micro-managing everyone's daily habits and still get them out of the house into town.

But for all its shortcomings and reluctancy to do anything more than the overly-successful formula, it's still kind of fun planning your dream-life, where you're a successful journalist and author and you're in love with a smart and sassy red-head.

... Uhm... yeah... turns out subconsciously my dream-life is being Clark Kent. Kind of embarrassing...

In any case, you probably don't need me to tell you whether or not you should buy this game. It's still a nice change of pace from all the macho guns-blazing fps or fantasy-themed, half-naked Elf-RPG. Speaking of which...


- Dragon Age: Origins. Probably the biggest surprise of the entire year for me. I'm not an RPG fan; I've been known to like them, on occasion, but generally they just bore me to tears. I don't have the time to spend so many hours running around and doing quests and monster-grinding to level up; I like linear games and a consistent story. But with so much hype and positive feedback, even from friends of mine, I had to check it out and I'm glad I did.

For starters, the game is PURE RPG; none of the toned-down, mainstream-geared stuff like Oblivion. That's a BAD thing; that's the worst thing about it. Sure, there are many people who like this kind of thing, but from such a high-profile a title, I wouldn't have expected such hardcore-aimed gameplay. Even my best mate, who is a huge fan of RPGs hasn't touched the game since he finished it, because -and I quote- "the game was so difficult it proved a traumatic experience".

The reason for this is that battle system is ASS. What you essentially have to do in every battle is micro-manage all four members of your party. There is a pause-function for that as close as the freaking space bar on the keyboard. Every minute you have to stop, pause, order around all the characters, unpause and then wait to see if your strategy is working and until when. Rinse and repeat. That's fucking sadistic. It kills the flow, it becomes more trouble than a game should ever be and it doesn't help that even if the battle system wasn't like that, the game is still really, really difficult; inconsistently difficult, in fact. There were times I'd beat bosses without much effort, but a pack of dogs from Hell would kill us in an instant.

And it's really long too; some dungeons take HOURS to clear. You have to sit through a very long game, which becomes even longer by requiring you to pause every other minute or reload a million times, because death is very, very, very likely. It's brutal; the only way to get through this thing is a lot of trial and error, micro-managing party members (the AI is OK in deciding what to do, but ironically it can't keep up with the game's difficulty) and utilize a lot of potions, traps and poison-making. And I was playing on EASY. Why couldn't it be a little more accessible? The Witcher was a good example of that; the hardcore audience would need to utilize alchemy in the harder levels, but for those of us who didn't give two shits, the game would allow us to steer clear of anything that wasn't simple battle.

In all honesty, were it not for the magic of the Internet and the lovely people who make trainers, I'd be verbally assassinating this one, because I truly believe that making a game too hard is, in fact, bad game design. It's entertainment, a hobby, not a job I have to devote entire hours to in discovering the basics to get through it. For all intends and purposes, Dragon Age is a throwback to the old games, when developers sought out to beat the player as a means of providing challenge. What the hell? I thought we were past that idiotic phase. It seems the folks out in that industry have a problem finding the silver lining between dull and frustrating.

Of course it says a lot that I just spent three paragraphs raging about the shitty combat system and I still recommend the game highly. The thing is, it doesn't look very pretty and the story is good, but nothing mind-blowing. But the characters are mostly decent (hit and miss, but they work) and the whole thing is just really, really immersive. The multiple begginings and endings and the myriad of dialogue choices really help you grow attached to your character, unlike any other free-dialogue-RPG I've played. It's one of those games that really are an experience and not in that entirely superficial way most blockbuster shooters are these days.

So, here's the thing; I'm not an RPG fan and I immensly enjoyed it. I don't like fantasy settings and I still found enough of a reason to continue playing, when I had already given up on Bioware's previous title, "Mass Effect", even though I love sci-fi. It jumped up to my wishlist, higher than any other title currently on the market. Once I finished it, I gave myself a day to let the experience sink in and then I started again; chances are once I'm done, I'll go straight for a 3rd playthrough. Play it; by all means, be it with a trainer and cheats or without, find a way to play this game.


And I'll see you next time.

New-found appreciation for "HL: Opposing Force"

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this here, but I love Half-Life. It was my first PC game, so there is a certain dose of nostalgia for the myriads of times I'd finished it. Anyone involved with gaming (at least on the PC) knows the success of the series and where it went from there on.

But back then, there was one part of the series I didn't like; the first expansion pack "Opposing Force". HL1 came out in '98, but I didn't get a computer until 2000, so when a friend gave the game to me I had just enough time to finish it a mere three times, before OF was released. Hell, I didn't even know it was coming out; said friend alerted me to its existence, when he took me with him and bought it.

He gave the game to me (that is, burned a copy, just like with the original; I claim ignorance on the whole piracy issue in my defense, I was still on my baby-steps in mainstream gaming), but I felt disappointed. Much to the dismay of my younger brother, actually, who was going through a loooong patriotism and military-fetishism phase and thought playing as a soldier was awesome.

In fact, I much preferred the second expansion, "Blue Shift" (which I went out and bought on -I think- Christmas 2002). It usually gets less positive opinions than OF, maybe because it feels like a long section straight out of the original game, instead of something epic on its own right, but I still liked it better.

Last time I had played any of these games was shortly before HL2 was released in '04. Hard to believe, even for me, since I even went out and bought the HL Generation package to legitimately own the entire series. I started the original Half-Life several times since, just never finished it.

Until a week ago, that is, when I sat down and decided to go through the entire HL anthology again (matter of fact, I just finished Episode 2). And I do have to admit I was a little bit unfair to Opposing Force and Gearbox for a good while. Now, the things that bothered me back then still bother me, but I do have to give them credit for a few accomplishments; the various overlapping moments with the original HL are neat (Blue Shift has some good ones, too). The action is intense and satisfying. The set-pieces are impressive and the one thing that really saves this game is the great level design.

That's odd in its own right, because the entire game for me remains a string of "Oh, I hate this part!" moments. But considering the bigger focus on action (it has some of HL's standard puzzles and acrobatics, but not nearly as much), the levels really compliment the design.

But for reference, what did and still does bother me about Opposing Force? For starters, I had an issue with the game's performance back then. My PC was absolute crap, but it did manage to run Half-Life half-way decently. It ran Op. Force as well, but there was a bit of a framerate drop and longer loading times (which made dying really, really annoying). I do blame my system, of course, but in practice I never quite realized why that happened. The game looks exactly the same. Maybe the new models are somewhat cleaner and more detailed, but the game lags even when they're not in. That kind of annoyed me, back then.

The premise, secondly. I can understand the logic of exploring the other side of the conflict, the poor nameless soldiers our favorite mute killed loads of in the first game, but it comes with certain issues; mainly the lack of actual enemies. The first game was aliens and soldiers; Black Ops assassins made a couple of appearances, but they were but fragments of the whole game. When you are the soldier, who are you going to fight? Not the guards, you need them. Not the scientists, what's the point? So you're stuck with aliens. And for most of the game, you fight the same bloody aliens over and over. To counter that, a new enemy was created for this game; male Black Ops grunts (the assassins from the first were all women; they make a short appearance here, too). I can see the logic behind that too, the only problem is they SUCK! They're essentially the soldiers in a different get-up. They're pretty tough when they gang up on you, but they just seem forced.

Actually, another problem I have with this game is that EVERYTHING seems forced. It's like they knew they had to make a game that was Half-Life, but still looked entirely new. So, we have the standard shooting and jumping on ledges, but with new enemies. And they just don't work. The original Half-Life made several alien monsters, but they all seemed consistent from a design standpoint. It was all part of the same plan. Where do Opposing Force's monsters fit in? Leaving aside the fact that they were never seen or heard from in any other installment of the series after this game, their design is just a tad inconsistent in style and taste from any other alien in Xen. It's the same deal as the Black Ops grunts; they thought they had to do something new for this one, so they just added all these extra monsters, which in the end of the day weren't really needed.

Another thing that annoys me a bit was the difficulty and that comes from a questionable game-design decision. It's far from impossible, but the new monsters are just too fucking strong. The ones that shoot needles have low health, but good accuracy. And if these are good, wait till you see the ones that jizz electric bolts. I hate these motherfuckers. They can't miss. Seriously; 95% of the time, you can't dodge their shots. You just take it and shoot them until they drop dead. This kind of logic becomes kind of irritating in parts like the one where you have to pass a big yard of containers and these things are all over the place. You have two or three other soldiers backing you up and you still end up with half your health- at best. It didn't help that I never figured out a strategy for them. They seem to die from two point-blank double-shots from the shotgun, but if you launch a grenade at them, they'll survive! That's kind of a problem when they move in packs.

Or how about those giant, yellow things? The only way to beat them efficiently is by launching a couple of grenades at them. They die, sure, but when you end up in a dark tunnel infested with these overpowered monsters, with no sense of direction and relying on your shitty night-vision goggles, while frantically trying to find the exit, lobbing grenades is a failing strategy! There are two other ways to take them down quick; with the machine gun or the teleportation gun (I prefer the latter, personally), but ammo for these is kind of scarce; the teleportation gun alone can fire only about 8 shots. I know how to get past this section in the game now, but the first time it was a nightmare. It's doubly annoying when you realize that they did this on purpose to make it a 'scary' part, a logic that just bugs me, because fear has to come from a psychological basis. Shoving me ill-equipped in a pitch-black tunnel with giant monsters after me won't scare me; it'll just frustrate me. Part of the reason the really scary games, like Silent Hill are effective is exactly that you don't need to fight and end up loading the game ten times 'till you win; you just fear you will have to fight.

Well, these were the main reasons the game didn't impress me in the least back then. Like I said, all these are still problems for me even now, but I have found a lot more to like. If you get past all the bullshit, it's extremely satisfying action. If you haven't played it in a while, like me, jump back to it again; it's still better than most current crap, especially in its genre.

Also, the Desert Eagle (which isn't really a Desert Eagle, but that's how the console reads it) kicks ass.

A few words about the DCAU

I never pretended to be a credible critic of any sort. I'm not big on being impartial in my reviews (not without warning, though) and I love verbally assassinating other people's work. I love it even more when said work has been generally well-received by most everyone else, mainly because it reaffirms my belief that anyone on this planet who isn't me is smelly and stupid.

But some things are just good and not giving credit is too petty even for me. It's no news that the DC Animated Universe is one of the best works of animation, especially super-hero animation, to ever hit the TV screen. And posting anything at all about it now is way past being late to the party.

But since I just went through an entire marathon of it last week, I thought I'd say a few words. For anyone under a rock, DCAU commonly refers to the DC animated shows made by Bruce Timm and his team, starting with "Batman: The Animated Series" in 1992 and ending with the last season of "Justice League Unlimited" in 2006. So, what am I going to do here? I'll just post a few things I liked and disliked about each show-- except Static Shock. Surprisingly I didn't even know this one existed until a couple of weeks ago. So, shall we?

Batman: The Animated Series (incl. "The Adventures of Batman & Robin")

Pros:
- Often-times character-driven. Batman was less of a super-hero caricature and more of a pain and loyalty-driven person on a noble and harsh mission.
- Animation. Yes, in hindsight there are a few inconsistencies and it's not all that smooth, but it's still beautiful and sets the tone of the show perfectly.
- It made Robin cool. The suit was actually pretty awesome and his acrobat background wasn't shoved down our throats during the action sequences. He could hold his own ground and it was about the first time I could see the Dick Grayson who turned into the much cooler Nightwing. Also kudos for starting off in his college years.
- HARLEY QUINN. I don't think anyone in their right mind could possibly not appreciate Joker's sidekick. Not just a delight to listen to, thanks to her great dialogue and Arleen Sorkin's excellent performance, but also a great character whose solo episodes are some of the best in the entire series.
- The supporting cast and the rogues gallery are every bit as likeable as the protagonist.
- Mr. Freeze. Revamped for this show specificially (and then re-adapted into the comics), BTAS' best villain after the Joker/Harley combo was Mr. Freeze. In his very few appearances (especially in this first series), he was a deeply traumatized character, whose pain and often-times compassionate actions made him likeable despite his wrongdoings.
- Ra's Al Ghoul and Thalia are fucking awesome, in about every way.
- The voice acting is fantastic. Defining voices giving defining performances.

Cons:
- The first half of the first season (it was a long one) is really fucking boring. There are a few truly good episodes, like the Two-Face origin 2-parter, but the rest (like "I've got Batman in my basement") are just boring.
- Dick's kind of irritating. Yes, Robin, the sidekick, is kind of awesome, but Dick as a character is hit-or-miss. He's not bad, but he maintains that supposedly "youthful" spark, which makes his constant quips kind of annoying.
- Penguin's deformed. No idea why (maybe to be in line with Penguin from "Batman Returns"?)
- Continuity's kind of sloppy sometimes. It's no biggie, since it's in the little things and it's pretty tight when episodes are intentionally connected, but there are some odd misses at parts. For example, early in the second season we see Poison Ivy flying away from Gotham and then, the next time we see her, she's back in Arkham. How she got there, whether Batman went after her or she came back and got busted or planned something else and got busted, we don't know.
- The score is kind of shitty. Don't get me wrong; the intro/outro themes composed by Danny Elfman, as well as Shirley Walker's standard "Batman theme" (which would follow the character until the end of the DCAU) are great, but the score in the actual episodes is either chaotic or just not-noticeable. The worst part of it is that it often-times sticks out like a sore thumb, in the sense that it doesn't really flow with the scene. Speaking of which...
- Action sequences. This is constant problem of mine with the ENTIRE DCAU; I don't like the action sequences. Even in "Mask of the Phantasm", which I absolutely adore, the movie tends to lose me as soon as we get to that funpark to fight the Joker. They aren't bad and they're well-animated, I just never did manage to find them exciting. In addition, Batman comes with the inherent problem of the utility belt, a.k.a. the skeleton-key-solution to every problem. In every tight spot, there will be something in that belt to save him. It's not a consistent arsenal, he can take out whatever he needs from whichever pocket the writer and the animators want.

And that goes beyond the belt; sometimes he'll be able to glide, even though he wasn't really equipped with a special suit. Or how about that grapple? No matter where he is, shooting it will conveniently wrap it around an object equally conveniently placed on a rooftop. And if there is no such item, the damn hook will just pierce through anything and latch onto the wall. How does that work? No, really; anyone who can explain it can go out and try it and if you survive the test, come back and tell me.

The New Batman Adventures

Pros:
- The writing remained top-notch. Actually, the general concensus is that this series is a little less mature than the original, I assume because of the animation and the often focus on the Batman Family, but I don't see it, personally. It's a little less moody, but the storylines are in the same tone as the original series; not to mention there is SO MUCH SEXUAL INNUENDO in this one, more than in any other DCAU series.
- Batman has an edge. Considering the series picks up a few years after the original (supposedly just as long as the series was off-the-air), not everything is the same. Batman himself is darker. He's more rigid, less emotional, more focused to 'the mission'. That's not to say I didn't like the slightly lighter version from BTAS, but it's my belief that Batman is in a free-fall; it's the inevitability of his existence from the moment he puts that cowl on. This development makes sense and gives us a new Batman, without ever trading the old one in.
- Barbara's kind of neat. I never liked her much, not even in her few appearances in the original series, but she works here. She's not anything great, but she pulls her weight and considering the detrimental effect sidekicks tend to have on Batman from a dramatic/literary standpoint, it's good to see she didn't become reason to downplay Batman in his own show.
- "Mad Love" broke my heart. 'Nuff said.
- The score was improved. Nothing memorable, still, but at least this time it didn't get in the way of a scene's impact.

Cons:
- The animation. That complaint is nothing new to anyone familiar with the show; when they started producing more episodes for Batman, they went for a slightly less detailed, more cartoony design and animation style, more in line with the Superman cartoon. Now, truth be told, it's by no means bad. If nothing else, it's more consistent than the animation in the original cartoon and allows for faster action. But the designs are kind of shitty. Every redesign, in fact, is a step down from the original, maybe with the exception of Penguin, who is no longer deformed. Some of the least impressive are the redesigns for the villains; the Joker has no lips. Poison Ivy is white, for some reason. So is Catwoman; I especially dislike the new Catwoman. I dislike that she's joker-white when in that costume, I dislike that she's now a brunette and that she cut her hair. The Riddler's redesign was also kind of stupid, now resembling Jim Carrey's Riddler; because that worked out so well. Again, it's not in any way an ugly cartoon, but these just don't measure up to the standards set by the original series.
- Not that I've ever been a big fan of hers, but I liked that grey line Catwoman used to walk in the original show. Her few appearances in this one make her so obviously two-faced (har har), which cancels her original appeal. She's not out of character, but she's not as exciting as before.
- Tim's kind of annoying. Worse, unlike Dick, he doesn't even hold that 'cool' appeal as Robin. He's not bad, really, it's just that he's a little kid. I never quite got the appeal of little kids as superheroes. Hell, the fucking Power Rangers, a TV show aimed at ages below 9 did that once and it turned out to be one of the worst ideas in the show. The original series dodged that bullet by fast-forwarding in Dick's years in college (even though it was implied Robin was active far earlier than that), but here... not so much.
- Not. Enough. Nightwing.

Batman Beyond

Pros:
- Terry is actually a pretty cool protege. His quips are relatively amusing, he's a good fighter and in the few times he shows emotion (the series wasn't as character-based as the other Batman shows), he's pretty likeable.
- Bruce is consistent with the free fall I mentioned earlier. It's a surprise he managed to live that long, but at the very least, he didn't turn into a nice, old gentleman.
- The action sequences are slightly improved. Again, I'm not crazy about any of the action in any show of the DCAU, but considering this was an action-based show, the cleaner animation and the futuristic gadgetry helped quite a bit.
- The rogues gallery is actually pretty interesting. They are colorful and fun, a nice evolution from Gotham's original villainous cast.
- In some ways, this is the finest DCAU show. It doesn't have the dead-zones of BTAS or Justice League and it doesn't have the little character and pacing problems of STAS. It's years of experience with Batman and a battery of fresh ideas done well.

Cons:
- It's Batman, only it's not. This is a problem with the concept and while I do find it a fascinating one, it'll always fall short of the original Batman's appeal. This led to some odd, conflicting emotions, not just on the audience's behalf. What do I mean?
- Terry doesn't grow. He can't. For starters, the show is more action-driven, which writes out characterization in a level deeper than simple motivation. Part of that is that, the most emotional-driven parts in the show focus on Bruce more than they do on Terry. So, the hero is forced by the writers themselves to take a backseat to his mentor; worse, yet, it's one of these things that you know are wrong, but are guilty pleasures, nonetheless. Some of the better episodes in this show are the Bruce-focused episodes, when they shouldn't be. It's all part of the inherent problem with the concept that I mentioned.
- Too action-driven. Mentioned it a million times already, so I might as well list it here.

Superman: The Animated Series

Pros:
- Lois Lane, when she gets screen-time, is awesome. Lois is one of those character you can easily miss, but this show did as good as a job as could be expected portraying her.
- Lex Luthor, while not as menacing as I'd want him, is still every bit as cunning as he should be to pose a credible threat to Superman.
- Clark Kent's not invisible. He's no Superman, but he's a fairly dynamic reporter, who makes an impression to the audience (even though most people surrounding him barely notice him).
- There are some excellent dialogues throughout this show. Especially when it comes to humor, with villains like Mr. Mxyzsptlk or Bizzaro, it shines.
- Darkseid. Is. AWESOME.
- There are some great additions in the cast from the comic, that otherwise rarely make it to other media, like Bibbo, Emil Hamilton, Maggie Sawyer and most notably Dan Turpin.
- Lobo's guest appearance is one of the most memorable crossovers I remember on TV.
- The cast is as fantastic as BTAS' cast. Dana Delany is the defining Lois Lane for me, as is Clancy Brown as Lex Luthor and while there are many contenders for that spot for Superman, Tim Daly is probably the best voice for animated Superman, right after Bud Collyer.

Cons:
- Superman is a bit too depowered. A problem Timm's team had for years (well into the Justice League show, actually), they could never get Superman to be interesting if they didn't drop his power levels really low for his villains to pose a threat. I don't want to be presumptuous, but I generally believe it's not that hard a thing to do.
- Another action-driven-show, like Batman Beyond, this one focuses very little on characterization.
- Because of the above, the Superman/Lois Lane romance is incredibly downplayed; not to mention the Superman/Clark/Lois triangle is nowhere to be seen. While I do think Lois should end up with Clark, I enjoy the romantic tension as much as the next person; assuming it's between these three characters. It's something pretty standard for Superman, so I'm surprised they only got around to doing a small Superman/Lois romantic interaction.
- Mischaracterizations, especially for Superman, are all over the place. And, yes, once again, it pisses me off when Superman is trying to kill someone. There are several such occasions in this cartoon, though the biggest poor bastard to feel the Man of Steel's wrath is Metallo. Every single time he fought him, he tried to kill him. Granted, through some Deus Ex machina plot-device, Corben always survived and came back for more, but their battles leave some giant WTFs for Superman. Also, get this; "World's Finest" three-parter, the LexWing blows up. Batman and Superman save Harley and Lex, but for some reason they intentionally leave the Joker inside to blow up. WHAT. THE. FUCK?!
- Not REALLY a bad thing, but I feel like Bizzaro's dialogue is off. Truth is, this Bizarro is the failed, imperfect clone from the "Man of Steel" mini-series and not the backwards-Bizzaro of earlier and later incarnations, so he wouldn't really talk backwards. Still, I can't help but feel something's missing from the character.
- Some of the rogues gallery characters suck. The Parasite is generally boring and Livewire, who they had hoped she'd be STAS' Harley in terms of popularity, ranges from unimpressive to annoying. Generally speaking, if the episode didn't involve Lex, Brainiac or Darkseid, or at least Bizarro and Myxy for comic relief, it was pretty fucking boring.
- I hate Granny Goodness. To be fair, it's as good a representation as any, but she's literally disgusting. She's ugly as sin, she's evil and she's voiced by a dude (or Kathleen Turner; not sure). And I can't shake that image off of my head of her and Darkseid doing it. I've had nightmares about this.


Justice League (Unlimited)

Pros:
- The dialogue is great. There isn't much in terms of characterization, for the most part, but the little things make the characters distinct. The show flows seamlessly, without ever allowing a character to monopolize it; in fact, often-times the writing is so good, that you can grow attached to one of the characters, even if it's not their own solo-series.
- The chemistry between the characters and the cast is great. Be it a small fraction of the team or the entire thing, they work great with each other at all times.
- Especially with JLU, the DCAU was expanded in a beautiful way. Even though many (B-list) characters never got more than a few lines throughout the entire series, there was a sense of grandeur surrounding the whole thing.
- Some of the best episodes in the DCAU were aired in this series.
- The Cadmus storyline in the 4th season was probably the most exciting thing Timm has ever done in the DCAU.
- Lex Luthor's return as a full-blown villain wasn't one I initially welcomed, but it really did allow the character to become absolutely menacing. More than he ever was in STAS, he was a big fucking asshole in JL/U; and for all his actions, the writers still found a way to offer him Catharsis in the series finale.
- Not all B-list characters were a huge hit in the show (e.g. Vixen), but kudos for not only using, but also portraying excellently The Question. His short tenure in the show's 4th season was one that won't be forgotten.
- Darkseid is STILL fucking awesome.
- "Destroyer". While I wasn't crazy-sold on the explosive action, it maintained that feeling of an expanding DCU. It's doubly important (and, I admit, considerably emotional), when you realize the DCAU started merely with Batman in 1992 and 14 years later it hits the finishing line with an entire universe of iconic super-heroes. It's pretty epic.

Cons:
- The first season is a drag. I guess the show was still trying to find its footing, but it was really, really boring.
- Superman was once again downplayed, reportedly because they didn't know how to use him without having him overshadow everyone else in the show. It's not just me being a Superman fanboy here, but this kind of excuse just bugs me, when you have freakin' BATMAN in a team of demi-gods! They can make the guy who beats up muggers in alleys take down alien weapons with Batarangs, but you can't find a use for Superman? And what about J'onn? He's even more powerful than Superman, with the telepathy and the shape-shifting and all that shit.
- The animation is slick and they had turned to digital film by that time, which made for clearer picture and better colors, but the designs aren't always that great. Superman, for example, seems to increase the size of his upper body with each season, which just makes him ugly. Batman doesn't fair any better.
- "Epilogue". I hate this episode. Not only do I have serious objections over the storyline (spoiler here: genetically Terry is Bruce's son), but I just have a problem with Timm and the DCAU masturbating to Batman once again. In a Justice League show; THE Justice League finale, no less. Now, I understand that they were trying to come full-circle there; this was originally supposed to be DCAU's final episode (before they decided to make another season) and they wanted to end with Batman, just as they started. I guess it's not the worst thing, in that regard, but while both "Epilogue" and "Destroyer" hit a sentimental note, what makes the latter a better finale is that not only does it leave a bigger impression, but it doesn't feel like a step back. In its effort to close the circle, "Epilogue" limited the DCAU back to Batman, so while it's anything but pessimistic, it loses something from the hope and epic grandeur displayed in "Destroyer", which instead gave us an ever-expanding world to fantasize about long after the show would've left the airwaves. If this had been the conclusive episode of the DCAU, I'd have been pissed.


So there you have it. Fourteen years and some of the most memorable shows in the history of animated television, fourteen years even I can't deny or dislike. Again, I don't know about Static Shock, but if for some reason you have missed any of these shows, just find them. They're worth every last penny.

Brainiac Attacks wtf?

I' ve been going through most of the DCAU lately (I'll post something about it later), so I decided to end that little marathon with "Superman: Brainiac Attacks", an animated film, which *seemed* to be in continuity with the beloved Animated Series of 1996 and had both Tim Daly and Dana Delany reprising their roles as Superman and Lois Lane.

So... uhm... what the fuck is wrong with this movie?! It was written by Duane Capizzi, who was essentially the head of The Batman animated show (which wasn't up to par with Timm's BTAS, but it was decent for the toy commercial it was intended to be) and wrote "Superman: Doomsday", which came with a battery of problems as I've mentioned in my recent review, but it was in line with Superman in terms of tone and characterization (for the most part). Hell, Lex Luthor was expertly written in "Doomsday", which is odd, because he's the biggest problem in "Brainiac Attacks"!

He's giddy. Ridiculously giddy. I'd heard he comes with a light sense of humor, but I swear, he didn't utter one serious line in the entire movie. He was over-the-top, a very implausible threat to the Man of Steel. And he's one of the two main baddies.

The other one, Brainiac, doesn't fair any better. He's... colorful. Displays emotions. It's weird. His delivery swifts tones and he even lets out a couple of "evil laughs". Nothing like Burton's cold, mechanic performance. The dialogue doesn't seem to demand it, either. Not to mention that in his original form, he has that creepy grin on all the freakin' time.

In all fairness, this movie isn't really part of the DCAU and by extension, "Superman: The Animated Series". Even if Capizzi hadn't come out and said so himself, it's pretty obvious. Lex and Brainiac seem to meet for the first time, even though they've collaborated plenty of times already in STAS and Justice League. In the same sense, Brainiac refers to Superman as "The Son of Krypton", instead of "Kal-El", which suggests that they don't share the same Kryptonian origin (Brainiac also rushes to absorb Kryptonian knowledge from the Fortress later, which he wouldn't need in his STAS origin).

But I'm not sure how any of that justifies the way he acts. Even in his Coluan origin, in his organic form in the comics, he's not really big on displaying so many colors. Let alone if he's a machine. Not to mention that... the movie uses the TAS designs and animation style. I'm sorry, but it makes little difference knowing that STAS and this film are not in the same continuity, if they look identical.

Another problem with the film? It was made in 2006. Do you know what else we got in 2006? This master-piece of shit. So, the Fortress has crystals (well... the console does), Jor-El speaks (but fortunately we're spared the floating head) and apparently, there is a Master Crystal. Because, you know, nobody's got sick and tired of that. Leave it to Warner to take an impressive (visually and creatively) concept and beat it over for some 30 years, until it becomes stale.

These 'wtfs' are what ultimately kill the film, though that's not to say the story is good by any stretch of the word. It's pretty standard, the battle sequences are equally unimpressive (the film was directed by DCAU veteran Curt Geda) and the climax walks the line of plausible-but-cheesy. Oh and Superman is an idiot. There is this little subplot about Clark wanting to tell Lois he's Superman and then deciding it's too dangerous, but he has to quit to protect her, only we need the status quo, so in the last 5 seconds, we fart a rationalization for him to explain to the audience why he's staying. Crrrrringe.

The only one good thing about this is Lois Lane. She comes with extra humor, too, but it's the kind that fits her character, so it works.

And before I go, I'll leave you with Lex on mushrooms. Enjoy:

DCU Movies Part III - "Batman: Gotham Knight"

It was just a matter of time for Timm and his team to work on a film for the character they once triumphed with. And it was the right time, too. Batman's first 21st Century outing in the silver screen had originally been met with limited success, but the film was so good it killed on DVD. Add to that the extensive and highly effective viral marketing campaign Warner threw in the way of the sequel, "The Dark Knight" and you have a winner.

"Batman: Gotham Knight" was released in late spring 2008, shortly before Nolan's celebrated film. Instead of going about the traditional Batman design from the Animated Series (which derived its style heavily from the Fleisher Superman shorts of the '40s), they came up with a sort of gimmick; they'd hire Japanese artists and directors to produce five animated shorts, in traditional Japanese (i.e. anime) style. Batman would be portrayed by none other than Kevin Conroy and these short movies (in the likeness of 2003's 'Animatrix') would tie in the continuity of Nolan's Batman universe.

What's relatively impressive is that they actually do. You can still watch the whole thing without any knowledge of either movie, but there are clear nods that put it in the same continuity. It works well for the most part, but it's also the project's biggest failing, in a sense. If you've read some of Nolan's statements regarding a Batman/Superman or a Justice League movie, he said (and I'm heavily paraphrasing) that his Batman is designed to be plausible within a framework where he's the only costumed hero in existence. And much flak as this statement earned him, I happen to wholheartedly agree. Batman's appeal is that he expresses pain, fear and a sort of darkness, while being one of us (ridiculously big trust-fund notwithstanding). If you take him out of that context and put him into one where his comrades could finish his job in mere seconds, he becomes irrelevant.

In fact, Batman happens to be a big paradox in the DCU, considering the kind of fantastical, larger-than-life storylines the company employs for its characters (as opposed to Marvel, who go for a more pseudo-realistic approach).

It's not terribly obvious, but just enough to notice in a couple of these shorts (e.g. the Killer Croc bit). If you try and consider all three movies as one and the same series, you can't help but notice that. But that aside, we still have a series of shorts that are truly satisfying; in fact, "Gotham Knight" is second only to (and may even rival) "The New Frontier". There is an underlying storyline throughout them all, but it's not the meat of the film. The core of this project is little bits about Batman as a character and his impact on the world around him. So, we go from a story in which kids all give their different POVs about this mysterious Batman, to Bruce training in India to withstand pain (and ultimately failing), to an exceptional finale against Deadshot.

Conroy is great in his role (nothing like that disappointing performance in "Arkham Asylum"), as is everyone from the supporting cast. The animation style and direction differ from short to short and while not all of them are to my personal liking, I can't deny that they're distinct and yet amazingly fitting for the character and the world around him.

I said last time that if you have to see one of these films see "New Frontier", but this would be a very close second. Hunt it down, watch it, treasure it. It's a great mix of anime, Nolan's Batman, comic Batman and even TAS Batman.