White Male Comic Heroes Coming To A Screen Near You!

So a while back I started watching Arrow. I enjoyed it at first, but by about the eighth episode I stopped. Recently my friend suggested I watch Flash. I wasn't expecting much, but I gave it a shot.

Now I love the Flash in the comics and even the Justice League cartoons; he's easily one of my favourite superheros, but I've always believed that he's a hard character to persistently write good stories for since super speed (at least at his level) pretty much trumps most things that aren't super speed. Now that's a problem that Superman has since he's so powerful, but in some ways it's worse with the Flash since he can solve most problems in the blink of an eye, so you have to come up with some contrived crap to regular create drama or even just to keep things moving for a whole comic book / TV episode.

Another problem that I expected a TV show to face was that super speed is not cheap. Drawing super speed is easier than filming it, meaning that typically a movie or TV show would either need a huge budget or have the Flash spend most of his time moving at regular speed.

Overall what I expected was a show with overly-contrived story lines, manufactured drama (as I like to call it, that is most of the problems are caused by the main characters being stupid), and the Flash spending most of his time moving at normal speeds. Well, I've finished the fourth episode and so far it's had all those problems, though none were as bad as I had feared. However, it had another problem that I hadn't considered; in retrospect I probably should have.

Lets talk about the Arrow for a moment. In early episodes that I have seen, Arrow - a white male - dispensed justice aided by his black male sidekick. As Oliver Queen he had feelings for a woman that he couldn't be with, but he tried to maintain his long-standing friendship with her without revealing that he was the Arrow, which resulted in him continually making promises to her then letting her down, meaning he had to keep awkwardly apologizing to her all the time. Her father, by the way, is a police detective who has a special interest in Oliver. Also, as practically every episode takes pains to point out, someone very close to him is harboring a dark secret, a secret that ties into how he became a superhero in the first place.

Now let's get back to the Flash. In the early episodes that I have seen, Flash - a white male - dispensed justice aided by his black male sidekick. As Barry Allen he had feelings for a woman that he couldn't be with, but he tried to maintain his long-standing friendship with her without revealing that he was the Flash, which resulted in him continually making promises to her then letting her down, meaning he had to keep awkwardly apologizing to her all the time. Her father, by the way, is a police detective who has a special interest in Barry. Also, as practically every episode takes pains to point out, someone very close to him is harboring a dark secret, a secret that ties into how he became a superhero in the first place.

Hmm, where have I heard that before? I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it? Now I'm not saying that it's "exactly the same show", but it does feel very familiar - more so than can be attributed to it just being another superhero TV show. And that's just disappointing, even more so since they are both being made by the same company. Give us some variety DC!

Speaking about variety, how about some superheroes that aren't white males? So far you've given us movies or shows about Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and the Flash. I mean, unless you count Superman (and I don't), all of those characters are American! You couldn't even give us a non-American white male superhero? Hell, the actors playing those characters are more ethnically diverse than the characters themselves!

Yes, I know that these are some of DC's oldest - and therefore most established and loved - characters, dating back many decades to less enlightened times. I just think that we need to grow beyond that. Hell, these days the market is so multicultural and the superhero genre (on-screen at least) so full of white males that it's just good business to have a more varied product line.


But you know, what bothered me even more about the Flash than the fact that it was so unoriginal, was the way the female characters were written. There are two recurring female characters so far: Iris West and Caitlin Snow.

Caitlin is one of the three former STAR labs staff members who are the first to know what Barry is capable of. Harrison Wells was the head of STAR labs; he's responsible for everything that has happened, and is also possibly a time-traveller who has a mysterious connection with Flash. Cisco is an inventor/engineer, who made Flash his suit and designs all the gadgets that they use for, well, everything. Caitlin is a bio-engineer; I'm not sure why you need a "bio-engineer" to build a particle accelerator, but hey, what do I know? Anyway, she's basically the medic. She's also the blandest and least likable character in the series so far. Plus by episode three she already needs Barry's help with her emotional problems.

Iris is Barry's oldest friend. He has a really obvious crush on her which she (so far) has not returned or acknowledged. Her father is a police detective, Barry's foster father and boss. She's currently dating her father's younger parter. What the hell is this, a soap opera? Geez. Anyway, so far she's been robbed in the middle of a huge crowd in a secure location; a pre-Flash Barry got beat up chasing after the thief and then missed the historic event that he had been looking forwards to for ages as a result. Whenever he tries to talk to her about his interests, she just stares at him until he apologizes, at which point she tells him in a condescending voice that he's an adorable nerd (seriously DC?). Barry's had to keep the secret of her boyfriend from his boss/foster father/confidant, as well as his own secret from her. She's constantly making out with her boyfriend right in front of him, which needless to say is painful for him (she has even gone to visit Barry in his lab just so that she can meet her boyfriend there out of her father's sight). Because of his feelings for her he couldn't form a relationship with Felicity - an attractive woman who really likes him, knows his secret identity, is equally intelligent, shares all his interests and even enjoys his nerdy jokes that no-one else gets.

In other words, her only purpose is to make his life harder and more complicated. Hell, it gets worse. Because she's dating her father's partner, apart from how awkward that makes it for him, her father now feels uncomfortable exposing his partner to risk knowing how badly it would hurt her if anything happened to him. As a result he very nearly gets himself killed when he tries to tackle a dangerous villain on his own. So yeah, basically every single thing this woman does makes life harder, more complicated, and even more dangerous for the menfolk. I'm actually surprised that she's only needed to be rescued once so far (twice if you count the laptop robbery).

This, it seems, is what DC thinks of women. I'm not a woman, and I know that DC is a large company and certainly not all people who work there think like that, but still I kinda have to say: screw you DC.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

And now, just for my personal satisfaction, I'm going to randomly complain about a bunch of other crap from the show.

So some guy grabs Iris' laptop when they are right in the middle of a crowd, halfway through STAR labs presentation for the start of the completed particle accelerator. Who the hell picks someone IN THE MIDDLE OF A PACKED CROWD IN A SECURE LOCATION SURROUNDED BY VIDEO CAMERAS RECORDING THE HISTORIC EVENT TAKING PLACE to try to snatch a bag from? Like, if you had to try to stage a robbery in the worst possible location, wouldn't you at least pick someone on the fringes of the crowd, not right in the middle? And then after pulling this huge risk to try to steal a laptop, rather than just run away, he rounds a corner then waits for the guy chasing him so he can assault him... WITH THE LAPTOP HE'S TRYING TO STEAL? Seriously? Aren't you planning on selling the damn thing? How are you going to do that after you've broken the damned thing? Oh, then he climbs over a chain fence and walks right into a police offer; the dad's partner in fact. Look, I don't know where they were in relation to the building and everything, but it didn't look like a place where people are that likely to be walking around - it was completely empty apart from them after all - so I find it quite unlikely that the partner just happened to be there at that exact moment. Ugh, something tells me that somewhere down the line it's going to be revealed that Harrison Wells set the whole thing up to make sure that Barry would be in his lab instead of at STAR when the accident happened.

He needed to run over 700mph to stop the twister? Don't most twisters have winds moving at like 200mph tops? And those are massive ones that destroy whole cities, not something 5 meters across. Plus we only ever see him running under 300 on the treadmill, and that's in a straight line - he was running in a tight circle around the twister, so... dunno, seemed to me like they just threw a big number in to sound dramatic.

Every single one of the first three episodes ends with Harrison Wells doing something suspicious. OK guys, it was surprising the first time, but every episode? It had seriously lost it's impact by the third time.

Felicity hacked the whole city's communication network in like 5 seconds with probably less than 20 keystrokes. Apart from the fact that she wasn't actually typing very fast, I'm fairly certain you need to type more than two words in order to hack into an entire communication system.

So their plan is to lock super-villains in tiny boxes and just forget about them? Really? That's inhumane, illegal even in prisons (fairly certain there are laws determining how long you can put someone in solitary), and just stupid; are you going to let them out some day? If not, I would argue that it's actually more humane to kill them. I suppose that they aren't thinking that far ahead, but right now I find the idea disturbing. Eh, considering that these people are supposed to be geniuses I would have liked a bit more discussion about the details and long term solutions, but maybe they'll build on that later, so I guess it's too soon to get too annoyed.

So his Mom was killed by someone with superpowers? Someone who no-doubt has some stronger connection with him (it probably involves time travel). I dunno, I'm just really sick of "chosen ones". I mean, lately everyone is a chosen one and it's never just a coincidence anymore. Maybe all the script writers are parents who thing their children owe them everything and should be more grateful for it? I just don't know.

I was not impressed with Flash for being angry with Cisco for building a freeze gun to use against him just in case (quite why a freeze gun sounded like the perfect weapon is beyond me, surely a laser or something would at least be too fast for him to dodge. Hell, if you made it emit light outside of the visual spectrum he wouldn't even be able to see it to dodge it!); after all they made such a big deal about working together to stop other people who were given superpowers without even discussing the idea that said other super-powered-individuals might not be villains, so clearly being prepared to deal with super-powered opponents is the name of the game here. Besides, what if you ran into someone with mind-control and he told you to kill everyone? Or just someone else with super-speed? What makes you think you're the only one with that particular power set? Hell, it looked like the guy who killed your mom was pretty fast, so... besides, you don't get to be angry at someone you just met recently because they don't completely trust you yet. Trust isn't something you're owed.

Speaking of the freeze gun, they said it receives regular firmware updates? From Cisco? Then why the hell doesn't he just pass it a firmware update that renders it inoperable, rather than some mumbo jumbo about boosting signals in order to track it? And how the hell did "Captain Cold" block the signal later? There was no indication that he was tech-savvy enough to modify this extremely advanced and non-standardized piece of equipment, EVEN IF he was able to figure out that they were tracking him through it (I mean, they caught up to him after he was in a shootout with the police in a museum that they already knew he was going to try to rob, so I'm not sure what the tracking thing was about anyway).

Also, they said the freeze gun runs on fuel; what kind of fuel? Is it something that will run out anytime soon? Is it something Captain Cold can figure out how to replace? Less of a complaint I suppose, I just think that this is a rather important detail that they should have thrown in a few lines of dialogue to explain, it would have fleshed it out a bit more.

Ugh, that nonsense with Cold and the train was so bad. So Barry runs of from Star labs to where they have determined Cold is. Cisco, Caitlin and Felicity decide to follow. Captain Cold gets on a train just before the Flash arrives, so he jumps on as it's leaving the station. So now he's on a train, which is super narrow; he's going to have an extremely hard time dodging Cold's fairly wide freeze beam. So what does he do? Stand there and talk to Cold instead of knocking him out before he can do anything. Cold then basically foreshadows his plan; we see Flash stop smiling as he starts to realise that something is wrong. Then Cold points the gun at the floor. So what does Flash do? Knock the gun out of his hand before he can pull the trigger right? Nope, he just stands there and waits for Cold to shoot the floor with his freeze beam. Then Cold opens a door and drops a one-liner before jumping out (of a moving train, did he really think this was a good plan? Did he even really know he would have time to jump out before the train wrecked? Or that he would be able to keep his footing as it started shaking? This is a terrible plan!). So naturally Flash hops over and knocks him out before he can jump, right? Nope, he just stands there and stares at him. He may be the fastest man alive, but it seems he has the slowest reflexes in history.

Anyway, so Cold jumps out of the train - we see him land to the right of the tracks btw. The wheels lock due to the ice, which apparently causes the whole train to derail spectacularly, with cars flipping over and bursting into flame (not sure what's burning, it's not like they store fuel on those things). It travels a good, I don't know, fifty meters? More? I can't tell, but it's a fair distance. During this time Flash jumps on and off several times carrying passengers. The final time that he jumps off, we see a car fall perpendicular to the track, effectively blocking sight from where Cold should be, farther back. Flash lands on the ground to the right of the tracks and collapses, then is instantly hit by a freeze beam that comes from where Cold is standing further along the tracks rather than further back! Even if I'm wrong about the directions and positions - and if I am it's the cinematographer's fault for not communicating everything properly - then Cold is still FAR too close to Flash's final position.

They talk for about twenty seconds, then suddenly the Cisco, Caitlin and Felicity are right behind Captain Cold. In the middle of a train wreck. That doesn't seem to be close to any roads. How the hell did they get there? And they're holding a vacuum cleaner that Cisco says he stuck "a lot of LEDs" on it. So let me get this straight: Flash leaves STAR labs traveling at over 200 mph, jumps straight onto a train, then withing one minute he's frozen to the ground with Cold standing over him. In this time those three normal-speed human beings found the (fairly huge and heavy looking) vacuum cleaner, stuck working LEDs on to it, carried it out of the fairly massive STAR labs complex into the parking lot, hopped into a car (I'm assuming they used a car?), drove to town at, what, 70 mph? Let's say 100 mph max (but we're talking about inner city driving here so realistically it would be far slower than that), stopping for traffic lights and so on, drove along or parallel to the train tracks (?) until they reached the site of the crash, bundled the vacuum cleaner out of the car, and wondered around until they found those two in the middle of the burning wreckage? OK, I'm starting to understand: turns out the Flash is actually a hell of a lot slower than advertised! Either that or the writing on this show is garbage.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 review

According to IMDB, this movie has the same director (well, one of the directors anyway) as the first one. Which is very puzzling to me since it seems to have no idea what made the first one so good. In fact it almost seemed to be going out of it's way to destroy the legacy of the original.


Let's start with the positives. The animation is much improved over the first. There were some beautiful landscapes and gorgeous scenes that did a great job of capturing the feeling of the joy of flight. It was fun to see all the characters again and there was some really great chemistry between them at times.

So what didn't I like about it? Well, I'll go into details in the spoilers section, but I think my biggest issue was the message. The message of the first movie was to try to see past surface differences and old grudges; to bridge boundaries; to break cycles of violence and find peace. It's about forging friendships and learning to accept each other even if we initially appear to be different.

In contrast, the message that I get from the sequel is "you have to protect your group against others, even if it requires violence". The phrase that they keep quoting is in fact "a chief protects his own". In other word, "it's us versus them". OK, look, I don't object to the basic idea that we have to be ready to fight to protect ourselves and those we care about, but the message of this movie is basically THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE FIRST ONE!

And you know what? I like the first movie's message more. I mean, "a chief protecting his own" is exactly what Stoick was doing in the first film, and it pretty much claimed he was in the wrong. If Hiccup had been all "a chief protects his own" in the original, he would have just killed Toothless at the start and there wouldn't have been any movie.

Furthermore, to a lesser extent there was also a message in the original about about solving problems by carefully studying them and trying to find intelligent solutions rather than attacking them with brute force, as exemplified by how Hiccup studies the dragons and is able to pass various challenges using his knowledge of them rather than by attacking them with weapons. In this one, they solve all the problems in the end by just being physically more powerful.

For example (spoiler warning for this paragraph), in the first movie they defeat a giant dragon by using teamwork and figuring out and exploiting it's weaknesses thanks to their understanding of dragons. In this one they defeat a giant dragon by Toothless just standing on a rock and spitting fireballs at it until it gives up. Because he's just inherently superior apparently. The hell was the point of that?

Another thing that I took issue to was that in the first movie Hiccup was shown as being different from everyone around him, and suffering because of that, but eventually he and his village learned that being different wasn't a bad thing, that he didn't need to be ashamed of being different. Again, that's a good message. But in this movie, they basically take that away from him. I'll leave the details to the spoiler section, but suffice to say it felt like downright character assassination to me.

What's more, the story felt like a mess to me. It's rather hard to pinpoint why other to say that there were a lot of characters running back and forth without achieving anything or really contributing significantly to the story. Many characters felt marginalized; all of the kids, including even Astrid, have a lot of screen time but don't actually contribute at all to the story: with the single exception of mentioning Hiccup and Berk to Drago, you could take out all the scenes featuring the kids and it wouldn't affect the plot at all. In fact, to me, even Hiccup seemed to be little more than an observer for most of the film, and Toothless was actually very passive until right at the end.

To be honest, I feel like the first movie was made because there was a story that the creators wanted to tell, while this one felt like is was made because... somebody needed their next paycheck. It just doesn't seem to have a prevailing theme or direction or message; it's just about some stuff that happened to some guys we know.


Overall, I give it a 6/10. It's... not a terrible movie on it's own, in fact if the first had never existed I probably would have enjoyed this a fair deal, it's just that it's so much stupider and less meaningful that the original that I was severely disappointed.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

Let's talk a bit more about the the whole "us versus them" message. Hiccup spends the whole movie trying to find a peaceful solution (although he doesn't do a very good job of it, he can't even convince his father to give peace a chance), and as a result of this people get hurt and his father dies. So the message isn't just "it's us versus them", it's also "don't be naive and try to find a peaceful solution"? I guess it's supposed to be "if peace fails then be ready to fight", but the fact that his attempt to find peace just made the situation worse creates the impression that the movie is preaching against even trying. What makes it worse is that from the start his parents are saying "a chief protects his own", then at the end Hiccup starts saying it too; the implication being that they knew better all along and he was just being naive, that he learned the lesson and that we should learn it too. It's us versus them. At least that's the impression I got. It didn't help that the antagonist was basically unreasonable and insane, as if to say "don't bother trying to reason with your enemies, they are inhuman and won't listen".

I'm like a stuck record but... the first movie was about breaking barriers, unlikely friendships, and doing what you know to be right despite how much everyone around you ridicule's you for it. This one was about how important it is to fight and be strong. I mean, yes, they beat the big dragon in the end of the first, but they did it by outsmarting it, using knowledge gained by careful observation, and thanks to courage and teamwork. They beat the big dragon at the end of this one by... Toothless being more powerful. In the first one the Hiccup's redeeming features were his intelligence, compassion, curiosity and observation skills, as well as his creativity and crafting skills. In this one his redeeming features were... having the more powerful dragon as a pet.

They won by being stronger, not smarter or more caring or braver or by putting aside personal gain and ego in order to work together. While I enjoy plenty of movies where the good guys at the end beat the bad guys by being stronger (which is not always the case; often they "win" through intelligence or perseverance or plain old luck), it's usually because they worked harder or had, lets say, "purer" motivations that allowed them to push themselves harder, or thanks to their courage and willingness to put themselves at risk for others, that they found the strength or skill to win. In this movie, it's mainly because Toothless was just inherently more powerful. He was basically born superior. Yes, his motivations are arguably stronger, but we don't see that as being a factor, we just see him get angry and start shooting fireballs at the big dragon until he wins. I don't think that's a very useful or strong take-home message.

Dragon-riding feels a whole lot less special now that everyone and their mothers (literally) have been doing it for decades. Personally I didn't like the whole "Oh yeah, you're not actually all that special, you're just doing what you were genetically programmed to do" inheritance thing. What, was he "destined" to make peace with dragons? Makes his achievement a lot less special or meaningful in my eyes if it's just something that's in his blood, rather than something that he did himself out of courage and compassion. He's not a person, he's just a set of lucky genes it seems. This is what I meant before when I said that they took his uniqueness from him. I mean, why does everything have to be some sort of destiny that our parents have already created for us? It really seems to be all the rage in Hollywood these days, and it's stupid. It's just a way to try to make things seem more important, when in fact it makes them less so. I mean, if Valka was the first person to ever ride a dragon, then why wasn't the first movie about her instead of Hiccup? Her story is the more historically significant and impressive, Hiccup is just some guy who came later and followed in someone else's footsteps.

Besides, it really didn't make any sense that his mother was like that. In the first movie Stoick gives Hiccup a helmet made from Valka's breastplate, and says his helmet is the matching pair. This makes us believe she was a large strong warrior woman, probably with a similar frame and personality to Stoick. But when we see her in this movie, not just in the present but also in a flashback, she clearly could never have worn such a breastplate. Plus, she never comes across as a tough Viking warrior who's used to having to fend off dragons; it's almost like she's never seen them before and is completely panicking.

While it's not unbelievable that Stoick would have married a woman like that, it seems a bit out of character; remember that the whole village is very much more like Stoick than like Hiccup, so if she was so much like Hiccup that he inherited his... whatever it is that made him different enough that he could make friends with dragons, then she would have been essentially a social outcast as well. Plus she clearly had more of it since the dragons took one look at her and carried her away to... be their pet/queen/dancing monkey or whatever. Why the hell did the Dragons even choose her anyway? Cos that's basically what they did. Did their dragon-sense tingle and tell them she was special? Basically she was a chosen one, and Hiccup's achievements were all hereditary and not in any way his own doing, and Toothless was just born better. Everyone in this movie was just born special it seems.

One thing that annoys me though about how they made out that he just inherited all his "uniqueness" (I can't think of a better word for it I'm afraid) from his mother, is that if that was the case you would have expected Stoick to make some comment at some point in the first movie about how Hiccup is "his mother's son" or something, perhaps be slightly less surprised about how Hiccup is so different, or even be more accepting of it because it reminds him of his wife, but there was just never any indication originally that she was any different in any way to the rest of the dragon-killing vikings of old Berk. Them portraying her as the first dragon rider in this movie just doesn't fit with what we already know.

Also, she's a terrible mother and a horrible person. She clearly never even tried to come back and see her son, never mind try to stop Berkians from killing dragons. She had the dragons eating out of the palm of her hand, she easily could have had them drop her off somewhere and wait, then just walk into town. But she says she's too scared. Well, I'm sorry, but if the choice is take a risk (I'm not even really sure what the "risk" actually is; was she expecting Stoick to kill her or something if she ever came back?) or never see your son again, most mothers I think would take the risk.

Having said all that I really liked the scene where Stoick was reunited with Valka. It was sweet and emotional and I liked the singing bit.

Oh, and by the way: "Drago"? Really? Running out of ideas for names are we?

What's up with that flaming sword? It doesn't make sense and also doesn't look like the kind of thing the Hiccup that I know would spend time and effort to create, seeing as -unlike the other children- he was never portrayed as being interested in playing with swords or anything like that. Ditto with the weird full-leather body suit and face mask. Maybe it makes sense if you watch the series?

That whole "love quadrangle" thing was kinda funny, but also kinda weird and pointless, and I felt it lacked a payoff at the end, being kinda just dropped with no real conclusion.

What was with all the dragon mind control crap? How did Drago control the alpha? How did Hiccup's mother get Toothless, who was in a decidedly hostile mood, to roll over and go to sleep with a single wave of her hand? I don't even want to try to think about the logic behind experienced veteran dragons - Toothless killed a damned Dragon Queen last movie! - being completely powerless to resist an "Alpha", but baby dragons - who are developed enough to fly after all - not even noticing his mind control. I mean, Toothless risks his own life to save Hiccup every other day, yet here he was actually forced to attempted to kill Hiccup and he didn't seem to hesitate at all. Hell, Hiccup didn't do a damn thing to stop it either, other than hold his hand out. "Oh, but it's OK, because he overcame it in the end". Yeah, when the bad guy just stood there and let him get close instead of killing the little twerp himself. I guess it was supposed to be the triumph of friendship over adversity, but it just didn't work for me at all.

How did the alpha understand what Drago wanted anyway? Does he speak English? Hell, how can he even tell the difference between one human and the other? They're like the size of ants to him.

So Drago has been building a dragon army for something like twenty years? That's... quite a long time, I just feel as if I need more information about what's been happening all that time. I mean, he killed a bunch of chieftans with dragons, then just sat around collecting more dragons for two decades? Or has he been involved in constant war, but no-one in Berk (including Stoick, who was already kinda involved before) ever heard anything about an army of vikings and dragons working together?

Personally I felt that there were too many times when they could have killed Drago but chose not to. I know that it's a kids cartoon, but after Stoick got killed, I kinda expected Hiccup to be a little more willing to use lethal force if that's what it took, but instead he just kinda stands there talking to him at the end and forgets that there's a dragon the size of an entire mountain standing just five feet away. Hell, they didn't even kill him at the end despite how much harm he'd caused and even though it's been shown that he's a very dangerous guy to forget about, one who is perfectly willing to spend twenty years preparing his revenge if that's what it takes. So the writers were willing to kill Stoick but not Drago?

By the way, I'm not happy that Stoick did not kill a one-armed man in personal combat when he was fighting to protect the woman he loved - this was after he had already disarmed Drago by the way. He was clearly willing to and I have a hard time believing he didn't have the skill or strength.

Nobody ever really did anything that could actually be described as intelligent, which I find disappointing. I mean, what was Astrid thinking, telling Drago about Berk? After both Hiccup's father and mother, who both hold opposing views, tell him you can't reason with Drago, he still doesn't listen, and gets his dad killed as a result. I can't help but blame Hiccup for Stoick's death; which again makes me feel that the movie is preaching against even trying to find a peaceful solution, if it managed to make me angry at Hiccup for not going straight for the jugular.

Why did Drago let them live after taking their dragons?

How did Drago learn to fly Toothless so quickly? Learning to coordinate tail movements is not easy, assuming he could even figure out what the apparatus was, but he just hopped on and flew away.

Since Hiccup added a lock for the tail to allow Toothless to fly independently, and we know from the short that he's figured out how to allow Toothless to control the tail fin and fly, why didn't he leave it locked or put the full controllable system back on? Seeing as he kept falling off and leaving Toothless stranded, I think it's something he should have thought of.

The final battle scene was much, much, much less impressive and intelligent and entertaining and understandable and believable and sensible than the final showdown of the first movie. Seriously, they just stood there and breathed fireballs at each other? Or rather one breathed fireballs while the other just stood and shook his head. Who came up with that idea? Whoever it was, fire him.

So they won the day in the end by Toothless realizing he had new powers and turning out to be the most powerful dragon in the world? What is this, a video game? I mean, seriously, they won because their pet dragon was more powerful than the other guy's pet dragon: it's Pokemon.

Hiccup's mom jabbed Toothless in the neck and suddenly a bunch of flappy double fins popped out of his spinal column? Apart from the questions "What the hell was that?" and "What the hell was the point of that?", I think they looked terrible and ruined a very cool dragon design. Again, it felt like video-game logic more than anything else. Perhaps it was so that they could sell Toothless toys to people who already bought the old one?

Those glider wings are way too small for Hiccup to be flying so vertically. And can't he steer at all? Remember Hiccup has basically understood how dragons fly so as to work with Toothless to fly again, yet every time he uses the glider an obstacle magically appears right in front of him - not a large wide obstacle, but a single spar of rock or ice that he should be able to steer around if he has any control at all, but he doesn't - and Toothless has to save him. Seriously, EVERY SINGLE TIME! I counted three occasions where he used the glider wings and had to be rescued, and none where he used them and didn't. And he doesn't even bother to say thank you, he's really taking Toothless for granted these days. I mean, why did he even try it without considering a way to steer or picking a nice safe stretch of air where he knew there was nothing in the way first; he's supposed to be a smart guy after all, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to put together the glider wings in the first place.

I know I shouldn't complain about this since it's not really that much less believable than anything else, but... breathing ice? The films don't address the idea of magic, but from the way that Toothless analyses dragons and we see the mechanics of how they work to some extent, it gives the feeling that their fire is some kind of organic process rather than magic. But as breathing ice could only be magic, I kinda felt that it didn't fit the tone of the rest of the movie. Meh, it's a really minor complaint I suppose.

How To Train Your Dragon review

With the sequel coming out soon, I thought it would be a good time to write a review of the original. I'm just going to start off by saying that this is one of my all-time favourite animated movies, definitely the cream of the Dreamworks Animation crop in my eyes. As usual, this means that this is going to be a short review, because I'm much better at pointing out flaws than explaining why something works. I wonder what that says about me?


I've probably seen How To Train Your Dragon four times by now, and I would almost say that I enjoy it more every time. I attribute this to the great story and characters; it's a very strong story and the characters are all likeable and relateable. The later scenes with Hiccup and his father still bring a tear to my eye, while the ones with Hiccup and Toothless bring a warm soft smile to my face. Gobber is a fun character, and the while the other kids might come across as slightly annoying at first and aren't given much development time, they still grow on you. I'm hoping the sequel will give them a bit more depth, as the slightly shallow way they are portrayed here is probably the most negative thing I can think of to say about the whole movie - and yet it's something that I understand and believe was both necessary to maintain focus and potentially useful as it gives the series room to expand and explore.

Special mention here goes to Toothless, who is brilliantly designed - sleek and streamlined, emotive, intelligent and mischevious yet still an animal who realistically doesn't understand the situation at times as it pertains to humans, making him vulnerable, relatable to those of us who have pets. They were smart enough to avoid the trap of creating a "perfect" animal, like many children's movies do; an animal (typically a dog) that pretty much always does the right thing and always seems to know what's really going on even when the people around it don't, and that solves the all the human character's problems, etc. Toothless, in contrast, is much better thought out, much more realistic and believable.

I will say that it's not the funniest animated movie (Despicable Me 2 has far more laughs-per-minute, for example) or the most action packed (I don't think anyone outside of Japan has topped the Kung Fu Panda films for animated action), but what it lacks in slapstick humor or animated violence it more than makes up for with heart and genuine warmth. This is a movie where the message came first, rather than being slipped in later to try to add emotional weight.


Let me just say that I think the voice acting was brilliant. The casting decisions were perfect; while Jay Baruchel's voice as Hiccup comes across as strange and out of place at first, that's actually the genius of it all: Hiccup himself is so different from everyone around him, and his out-of-place voice and speech patterns make that instantly clear. His dry humor and sarcasm just doesn't register with most of the other characters because they just have so little in common that they don't understand him, yet I think it resonates with many of us who have found ourselves exasperated by larger problems or issues that no-one else seems to notice or care about.

Gobber is the only character who can, to some extent at least, understand Hiccup, so it's fitting that his voice, mannerisms, and character are likewise a little off; like Hiccup he is quite self-aware and quick to joke about things (though his humor is less fatalistic), and Craig Ferguson fills the role nicely. Mr. Gerard "This! Is! Sparta!" Butler is perfect as Stoick, Hiccup's father and the village leader. The rest of the vocal cast are likewise perfectly matched to the characters they play and do a great job.

While we're on the topic of sound, I'll say that even though it's not a musical I still enjoyed the music. There's also some noticeably characterful sound design, such as the Night-Fury's roar and the sounds made by flocks of dragons, which are almost whale-like and can be suitably unnerving when it serves the plot.


While the movie's visual style comes off as a little "safe" in my eyes, there are some impressive moments. The flying scenes are gorgeous and breathtaking, and are enough to make me want to take up gliding. Obviously fire and smoke play a big role, and luckily they are spectacularly well animated; in fact the fire effects are probably the best I've ever seen in an animated movie.


I feel good enough about this movie to give it a 10/10, and I happily recommend it to everyone.

It's worth mentioning by the way that the movie was followed by several shorts. I've only watched one of the three ("Gift of the Night Fury" to be exact), but I really enjoyed it and I'm going to try to watch the rest before I see the sequel.

There was also a TV series made. I've seen some other Dreamworks animated series such as Penguins of Madagascar and Monsters vs Aliens, and based on that I expect "Dragon Riders of Berk" to be fun, but perhaps not exactly "canon", so I think I'd rather watch the sequel first.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

I just want to say that I felt the end of the movie had genuine integrity; they earned their happy ending, but it didn't come without sacrifice. At the same time, Hiccup losing his leg only serves to bring him closer to Toothless, to strengthen their bond; they're both "damaged", in a way they both complete each other. It's a very powerful image and I think it adds a great deal to the movie.

I'm not really sure how I feel about Gift of the Night Fury, as it's shown that Toothless can be "fixed" so he doesn't need Hiccup anymore. I feel a little bit as if it undermines the original movie by removing that dependence, but on second thought it seems that it's better that they aren't forced to stay together but chose to do so. In fact the more I think about it the more I think having toothless rip the prosthetic fin off his tail so he would be dependent on Hiccup was the mistake. Don't get me wrong, it's very powerful scene; it's how Toothless shows Hiccup in the strongest way he can that he wants to be with him, wants to be connected to him. But when I think about it, it feels unhealthy for him to cripple himself just to stay in a relationship. Oh well, what do I know? I'm probably overthinking things, and besides the story's not over yet.

The Raid 1 & 2 Reviews

I just saw the Raid 2. In order to discuss it, I first need to talk about the original. So here's two reviews for the price of one (technically true since zero times two is still zero...).

The Raid

The Raid is easily one of the most intense action movies I have ever seen, but perhaps more than that it's one of the most unrelenting action movies I've seen. The action is fast and brutal takes up most of the run time; action scenes are long and intense and there's just enough time between them to catch your breath before the next one comes along and outdoes the last. It's this pacing that is perhaps one of the movie's strongest points: if they'd spent less time between action scenes you might get "desensitized" and it would end up with weaker context and possibly tension, if they spent more it would get bogged down and lose it's momentum and intensity.

The martial arts is fast and brutal, and very different from what I've seen in Hong Kong movies, feeling like less of a beautifully choreographed dance and more of a gritty and believable scramble for survival. It does remind me of Ong Bak, but that's probably more to do with it's brutality and the fact that they are both different to more traditional kung fu movies, as the two martial arts styles are quite different.

Pretty much the whole movie takes place in a single building, and while this may sound like a limitation, the film turns it into a strength, as it creates a feeling of hostility and claustrophobia that is a big part of what gives the action context and makes the movie work, of what makes it so memorable in fact. When you talk about this movie years from now, it will be "you know, that one where the whole thing takes place in that one building, remember?". It makes the movie unique and helps it stand out. And yes, Dredd did have almost exactly the same set up, but it came out later and is a very different kind of action movie.

It's natural to assume that a movie that focuses so heavily on action would have a bad plot. While the plot of The Raid is rather minimal, I wouldn't call it bad; it does a good job of setting the scene and giving context to the action, without falling into the trap of thinking that "the plot doesn't really matter so it's OK if it's bad, it just needs to get everyone from point A to point B", the way many action movies do. I would say it does exactly what it needs to and doesn't overstay it's welcome, allowing the true strengths of the movie to shine.

I want to take a moment to talk about the main character. I like that when the movie opens he's already chosen to be part of this extremely dangerous undertaking. No, it's not something he's looking forwards to, and we do see him dealing with the emotional weight in his own way, but the point is he's not dragging his heels and whining for the entire movie about how it's not his fight in the tired Reluctant Hero^TM cliche that every Hollywood movie seems to think is a brilliant and revolutionary new way of creating a deep and relatable character that has never been done before. No, our hero is actually far more impressive than most, not because he's so much better at hitting people, but because he has the courage and sense of duty to shoulder a heavy burden without complaint, rather than whine and and try to pass it off to someone else.


Overall it's a 10/10: one of the best pure action movies of all time and almost certainly the best action movie of the last few years.

OK, a solid 10 may seem too much for a movie with very little plot or character development or, well, anything that doesn't involve people being grievously wounded, but the thing is that it is possibly the pinnacle of it's genre: a pure action movie. It spent enough time on other things to make them work, if it spent more then that would likely take away from the intensity of the action. It knows what it wants to be, it focuses on it, and pulls it off spectacularly.

The Raid 2

Let's not beat around the bush: I didn't think this one was as good as the first. It did most of what the first did, and arguably better: there was at least as much action, if not more, which was at least as intense, if not more so. But it didn't manage to pull off one of the more characteristic features of the original: the unrelenting non-stop pace that was a big part of what made it so memorable.

The biggest problem is that this movie has a lot more story, but while the story is not bad, it mostly revolves around characters who we don't really care about; the main character is quickly relegated to a bit player in his own movie. I'm not even exaggerating; for most of the movie the hero pretty much just does what he's told while all the other characters drive the plot. He barely even has any lines for much of it, while everyone else is running around yelling at each other.

As a result we don't really care very much about the story, and it ends up just being padding. Worse, it breaks the flow; while the first one gave us just enough time to catch our breath between action scenes, this one gives us enough time to drift off. As a result it loses it momentum, each fight feels isolated and almost unrelated, it just doesn't sustain that intensity that the first one had.

What's more, what little we see of the main character is unfortunately cliched. That's right, in this one he's just another Reluctant Hero^TM. This time he doesn't want to be there, he would walk out if he could and indeed tries to twice, but he is denied that luxury, and as a result he just mopes around doing what's immediately necessary pretty much up till the end. What's more, the first movie took the time to give us a chance to like the character by showing him helping others, even in the midst of seriously high-stress situations when his comrades are too focused on the herculean task at hand. Here, all we see him do is hurt people, he never really has a chance to come off as any more than just a thug, if you hadn't seen the first movie you wouldn't have any reason to see him as being any better than the crooks he's surrounded with. Well, OK, it's true they show him missing his wife and son, but they also show a mass murderer who kills for fun and profit "missing his wife and son", so clearly that's not a sufficiently strong indication of virtue or morality.

Another unfortunate issue is the change of setting. While the first one's setup and setting led to a memorably claustrophobic movie, with a practically tangible sense of being trapped and surrounded by hostiles, this one has far more varied settings that, perhaps counter-intuitively, make it less memorable and more generic. It lacks a strong theme or style, and turns into just another martial arts movie in a generic city (no offense to Jakarta intended, it's just that it's, you know, a modern city).

Should I be surprised that the sequel does not reach the same heights as the original? Normally I wouldn't be, but I was hearing good things about this movie even in spite of my refusal to read any reviews or watch any trailers, and despite my usual caution I ended up allowing myself to hope it wouldn't forget what made the first one so amazing.

But I think the series has become something of a victim of it's own success, as many do. You see, part of what made the original so great was arguably the limitations; limiting the scope to a single building with minimal plot made it unique, and now that they've expanded the scope it's basically ended up doing, well, what everyone else does when they don't have to work under strict limits. I believe I first heard Terry Gilliam describe the phenomenon, and one has only to look at the video games market to see it in full force; the big developers with the big budgets keep making the same games we've seen before, only a little better, while the tiny indy developers with no budgets whatsoever are the only ones producing games that are new and innovative and stylistically different.


So is there anything good about this movie? Well, the acting is pretty good, the cinematography is great, and did I mention the BLOODY AMAZING ACTION? The martial arts is stunningly intense and brutal and even more inventive than in the first. Despite all my whining and complaining, this is an amazing action movie. Period.


Overall I'm giving it an 9/10. The plot may be a little boring but it's punctuated by some of the best martial arts action there is.

The Drama of Games Workshop

So Games Workshop has been going through a lot of changes in the last couple of years, and even more in the last few months. This has sparked a lot of debate recently about what their plan is and what they are doing wrong and what they should change etc. One thing that I heard mentioned was that essentially the barrier of entry is now too high, especially for children. It's important to keep bringing new blood into your customer base in order to keep it healthy in the long run, but in a time when videogames are everywhere it's hard to get kids interested, and with the prices being what they are now... at least that's the argument I hear. Another point I just heard mentioned was that it takes a lot of space, while videogames take no more space than a box under the telly or a phone in your pocket.

I don't know how true this all is - remember miniatures wargaming was always a bit of a niche so for most kids to not be interested is nothing new - but it does make some sense, and it got me thinking about the hardships I encountered (and still do) getting into the hobby, and what some possible solutions might be.

So here's some ideas for GW. I don't for a moment think I'm some kind of genius who's figured out how to fix all their problems, these are just some suggestions for things that might make it easier for some people to get into the game.


First of all, let's take a look at where most people start playing: the starter box. Now, this is a great box of goodies, and it's good value compared to the rest of GW's product line AND to most board games and similar starter products I've seen, in that for only slightly more you get a whole heap more models. But it's still not cheap.

Lets take a look at the Privateer Press battle boxes for a moment. A single player battle box only has a few models, and only one faction so it's not all you need to start playing with a friend. But it's a lot cheaper, and they have them for a range of factions, so if you have friends who already play (which to be honest is probably how you're going to get pulled into the game) then it makes it a lot easier to get started with a faction you like the look of. They also have a set of "quickstart" rules that are probably (I don't really remember reading them) a lot easier to start with than the full rules. And hey, if you're buying stuff for two players, then each player is probably going to want his own copy of the rules and other bits in the long run, and there's a sense of ownership to picking your own faction and having your own box of figs, so at the end of the day just sticking with single player boxes probably works quite well.

But the models you get are still un-assembled and unpainted. That's great for some people, but other's just want to get into the game. Many board games come with very nice 1-piece models in different coloured plastics that you can start playing with right away, but I've even seen boxes of pre-painted figures in hobby shops (I think they were generic role-playing game style figures). Obviously we know it's not too expensive to manufacture fully assembled and painted figures as we've been buying them our entire lives.

Now such figures wont be as complex or detailed or have as much variety in poses, and the paint jobs would be very basic, but they work as an introduction. "Here's some simple stuff you can start with, and if you enjoy it you can eventually move up to the big-boy toys that you get to assemble and paint yourself" sort of thing.

Another thing I've seen in board games is, well, better packing. Essentially with a board game you want to take everything out of the box, have a game, then put it all back in and put the box away. For traditional board games this is quite simple as there's not much more in there than booklets, cards, dice, and a board - nothing too bulky or damageable - so it's easy to just drop them all in an empty cardboard box. But some modern board games come with more complex contents, and occasionally these have quite well thought out internal packaging that holds everything safely and securely. And lets face it, a sheet of foam with some basic cutouts isn't very expensive. I think Mantic sells boxes of figures that are robust and come with foam so they make pretty good cases for those same figures once they're painted, for example.


So that's the first suggestion: smaller, cheaper one-player starter boxes that cover a wider range of factions, have everything you need to play including pre-painted figures and some cardboard-cutout scenery, and are intelligently packaged such that you can continue to store and transport your stuff without needing to buy any additional carrying cases. In other words REALLY EVERYTHING you need to play (very) small scale games.

Ideally there should even be room to store more models: seeing those empty slots in the foam will probably serve as an incentive to buy more models after all (at this point the painting starter kit will be looking quite attractive...), and it more gradually transitions players into expanding their army. And while we're on the subject: when a prospective new buyer walks into a GW and starts buying stuff, it seems to me that the staff typically are quick to load them up with all the added bits: the codices and the carrying cases and the paint kits etc. What they should be doing is selling them as little as possible - the bare minimum they need, and not mentioning all the rest. That way they the don't get home, tally their purchases and realise the hobby is much more expensive than they expected. That might end up discouraging them before they are really invested. Get them started, and they'll be back for more soon enough.

OK, that might sound like I'm trying to help GW rip-off customers, but what I really want is a situation where customers never regret spending the money (the way I sometimes do), and enjoy a healthy long-term relationship with GW. Then they will continue to spend reasonable quantities over a lifetime rather than a lot in a hurry then decide it's all to expensive (the way I kinda feel right now) and quit the hobby.


The other big issue is the complexity of the rules. It takes a long times to figure things out, even when playing with more experienced players to guide you. A bunch of friends who haven't played tabletop wargames before trying to learn how to play 40K from the rulebook without some more experienced players around? It's going to take some effort, and I don't think they'll be enjoying themselves very much for a while - at least not as much as they could be, and if they don't really "get into it" after a game or two they probably won't stick with it. This is pretty much what happened with my friends when I tried to get them playing; at the time I was just starting to figure out the rules myself and as a result the games were slightly confused and they didn't enjoy themselves much and didn't play again.

I've been thinking about ways to solve this, and here is what I've come up with: a tiered rules system. The idea is that that are several "tiers" of rules; in theory you only need two, but I think it's useful to split into around four tiers. Alternately you could have two tiers and any number of optional "bolt-on" rule sets, with two initial ones in the main rule book and others as added releases. All named rules belong either to a tier or to a bolt-on. Let me explain.

The first tier is the introduction rules: the basics of movement and combat. These should fit on just a few pages; one or two would be ideal. The idea is that these let you start playing in a hurry. These rules may not be balanced across armies, but the starter boxes can be designed to be reasonably balanced with just these rules.

A second tier includes more advanced rules. This could be ALL the remaining rules for infantry if deemed appropriate, though if possible it should be more granular. The important thing is that these add on to the first tier, rather than replace them; by which I mean you don't need to un-learn a rule when learning a more advanced one, you just add some more rules into your game by moving up to the next tier when you're comfortable with the current one. This way you build up rules knowledge gradually, but always know enough to play.

Rules for terrain, vehicles and flyers could be additional tiers or bolt-ons, but I think tiers works as typically once you learn all those rules you will be playing with them all, so you would basically walk up to someone and say "Want to play a tier-1 game?" meaning you're a beginner, or "Want to play a tier-2 game?" meaning you're an intermediate player, or "Want to play a tier-4 game?" meaning you understand the rules and are no longer a beginner.

Now additional rule sets, like Cities of Death, Escalation and Stronghold, would be classed as "bolt-ons" and would essentially be additional optional rule sets that you can use one or more of as desired. Which is pretty much what they already are, but it would be more formalized and structured. Hell, I would probably suggest making flyer rules a bolt-on, since those change the game so much and not everyone likes playing with them. This would all serve to make it easier to play the game at the level of complexity that you are comfortable with.

Now this may be a tall order for GW as clear intelligent structured rules writing hasn't been their strong suit as of late, but that's probably something they should work on anyway.

Brainsmasher: A Love Story review

I was at a local pound shop the other day and, out of sheer morbid curiosity, I stopped to check out the crappy DVDs these kinds of places stock. So yeah, the title was so silly that I was actually intrigued enough to read the back: "Sam Crain, a professional model, is asked by her sister to smuggle a package from Europe to Portland, Oregon where she discovers that her sister is battling Chinese Shaolin Monks.". Um, what? I was almost surprised when the back was even sillier than the front, so I decided to give it a go.

After watching it, I can conclusively and without any doubt say that it's a movie. I don't really have much else to say really. It's neither good nor particularly bad; at least it's not worse than I expected or better than I had hoped considering it's clearly a made-for-TV or perhaps direct-to-DVD flick. It was mildly entertaining at points, and never particularly annoying.

That last part is kind of a big thing actually. These days I get annoyed with movies and TV shows very quickly; I've grown very impatient, and I actually find it very hard to sit and watch things sometimes. Well, a lot of the time in fact; when I tried watching season 2 of the Walking Dead, for example, I turned it off less than ten minutes in because that's how long it took to start feeling stupid and contrived.

But Brain Smasher didn't annoy me. Much. Perhaps it's because it didn't take itself seriously, or perhaps it's because it never had enough ambition to make me care enough to get annoyed when it acted stupid, I don't really know.

On the positive side, the monks were fun, and the main characters were more likeable and in fact more capable than I expected. On the negative side, the movie was somewhat uneventful, there's a surprising lack of romance or chemistry for a movie with "a love story" in the title, and you will get sick of hearing the phrase "ten thousand dollar watch" long, long before they stop saying it. Seriously, the damn thing practically has a speaking role.


So what's the final score? Well, I guess it has to be a 5/10 seeing as it's a completely average movie. You probably won't regret watching it on TV or when you're really bored. Probably.

The worst thing that can happen to a comic book character is to star in their own comic

"What the hell does that mean?" you say. "How the hell does that make any sense?"
To which I reply: "Stop swearing and let me explain. Potty mouth."

Lets start by talking about team books, like say the X-Men. Now I picked the X-Men over some other groups because, in both the comics and the movies, they were a team first then individual characters went solo later, which is the kind of situation that I'm referring to in the title. Many characters start this way; either in a "team book" or as a supporting cast member in another character's comic. Of course in the world of comics it's not always so clear-cut; Wolverine, for example, generally has his own series as well as being in at least one X-Men title at any given time - after the Civil War he was a main cast member of Secret Avengers as well.

But let's get back to the X-Men. Now, in a team dynamic, most of the character development, story and drama (at least of the sort that doesn't involve alien invasions) comes from the interaction between the different characters. Personality clashes, alpha-male struggles, relationship issues, etc.

Now put a character in his own comic. Yes, there's other people around, but they're just supporting cast, they don't really matter - at least they're often portrayed that way. At the very least they are generally viewed in terms of their relationships with the main character, the focus ultimately isn't on them.

So where does the emotional content and personal drama come from now? Well, from what I've seen, what generally happens is that it now comes from the titular character's inner conflict. Their doubts and fears, their struggles with ever-increasing burdens they must bear.

In other words, when a character gets their own comic they are all too often transformed from a strong and entertaining superhero into a whiny and annoying emo loser.

Sorry! That was probably very offensive. I don't wish to say that having personal problems means you deserve scorn, far from it, I have more than enough bad days myself, days when I cannot think of a single thing that feels worth getting out bed for, days when I just want the world to go away and leave me alone.

But the thing is I don't want to read comics about that. Or at least, I don't want to read any more comics about that. Or at least, I don't want to read any more fantasy comics about people who wear skin-tight clown suits and can juggle SUVs while cooking eggs with their minds whine about hard everything is, while their whole world entirely revolves around ruining their lives. I want to see them fight evil and do super stuff.

And another thing: it seems that while most team comics seem to heavily feature the team responding to external problems, like bank robberies and demonic invasions, in solo books the threats are all too often from super-villains targeting the main character, from problems that come to their doorstep and punch them in the face, forcing them to deal with them, rather than independent crisis that they chose to try to solve. Overall they stop making the world a better place and end up just putting out fires that were fallout from people trying to hurt them specifically, meaning their existence is a net negative for the rest of the world.

I'm not saying it's wrong to portray these characters as human, or to try to make them more relate-able or sympathetic, or to admit that when the whole world really is resting on your shoulders it can be a little difficult sometimes. I'm just saying that not every character has to be like that. In every comic they every star in. For all eternity. I mean, change the tune a little, you know? It's just not fun. Any why shouldn't comics be fun? I mean, if I'm reading a comic about the adventures of a guy who travels through space saving entire planets of strange aliens from bizarre cosmic forces, I'm probably not reading it because I want to hear the guy harping on and on about how much he regrets not being a good husband.

OK, X-Men probably isn't the best example since they've always been kinda whiny emos (sorry!). When I used to read the x-men twenty years ago every single issue talked about how the world hated and feared them. OK, it was in the introduction blurb, but it was still kind of a running theme. Now, on the rare occasion when I see an issue in the news agent and pick it up to take a quick a look, the first thing that I always see is the same old whining about how everybody hates them. I haven't been able to read X-Men in years because DAMMIT STOP WHINING ALREADY!

Ah-hem. Back to the point. Um, well, I guess what I'm saying is, what I enjoy is seeing the good guys grit their teeth with determination, not bow their heads with self-pity. Shallow? Probably. Immature? I don't know. But I do know when a comic book character gets their own series, they're probably going to go from being a strong and willful hero, to a weak and whiny mess who's more victim than saviour.