The first Borderlands was a game that came out of nowhere to surprise me. I wasn't expecting much from it, but a friend recommended I pick it up, and I did. I had an absolute blast with it; it was fun, it was funny, it was stylistic, and it had guns coming out of the wazoo. Now the second coming is upon us, and in returning to Pandora, things have changed a bit. So is this game as good as the first, or is it more on par with their Duke Nukem Forever offering?
I will note I'm currently still on my first playthrough of the game, and have yet to finish it. I'm playing the Xbox 360 version, mainly in two player co-op.
First up, I'll cover some of what's changed. The first game was known for its guns, millions of guns. Well, the second continues this, but this time around, the designs have been revamped. Guns have differing looks depending on manufacturer and abilities, and these more distinct looks are a definite plus, with guns actually being interesting to look at, as well as use. Each manufacturer has more of an identity now too, from the old fashioned Jakob guns to the elemental damage dealing Malawan pieces.
The characters are slightly different from the first game, but the gameplay still feels familiar. This means it's easy for series veterans to jump into with ease, but you still get to play characters with a slightly different feel. As for the NPCs, there's a lot of familiar faces, and the characters are still as weird and funny as they were. If anything, this game takes it up a notch. The first had a slightly subdued feel at times, like they weren't quite sure how far they wanted to take the funny and satirical aspects. They drifted more towards the weird and wacky in the DLC for the first game, and in the second, it's very evident. There's a lot of funny dialogue and visuals, and the game has nearly as many pop culture references as tvtropes. Personally, I like this, and I think if you liked the (often black) humour of the first game, you will too.
The game also features a revamped challenge system; instead of experience, you earn badass rank and tokens, which you can exchange for various permanent stat boosts, which apply to all your characters. This has the effect of making the challenges more noticeable, and completing them somewhat addictive. I mean, who wouldn't want a higher badass rank?
Combat-wise, things have changed up too. Enemies are a lot smarter, they dodge, try to get better positions, attempt to flank you. Different enemies actually feel like they have different AI. It's a nice change from the first game, where most enemies would just stand still, or charge at you. I find the combat more enjoyable this time around, especially when playing co-op. Which raises a good point; do yourself a favour, and play this in co-op. It's a decent and fun game playing solo, but in co-op it's something entirely better. I'd recommend playing with friends though, not strangers, or else you run the risk of finding someone who just takes all the loot, or refuses to co-operate.
A weak point of the first game was the forgettable story, and the less than varied locations. Both of these have seen a much needed boost in the sequel, with a more varied range of environments, and a much better story, at least so far as I've played. The antagonist 'Handsome Jack' is very much a presence through the game, frequently contacting you to taunt you, which puts a face and a clear goal on the game, something the first lacked at times.
Cosmetically speaking, it has the same stylised look as the first game, and it works just as well here. Character and enemy designs are fun and well executed. Furthermore, there are now various skins available for the characters and vehicles, and it's always fun to find or unlock a new one, and see what you got.
So in conclusion, it takes the fun of the first game, improves upon almost every aspect to some degree, and makes up for the few disappointing flaws of it to boot. This is a definite must-buy for me, and could even be a Game of the Year contender. It gets a full 5 out of 5 stars from me. If you don't have it, get it. If you do have it, why are you reading this when you could be playing it?!
Action Comics Writer: Grant Morrison Artists: Rags Morales, Rick Bryant, Brad Anderson Okay, time for me to make a confession; I’ve never been a fan of Superman. I find he’s overpowered, often comes across as arrogant, his extraterrestrial origins make him hard to relate to. In short, not exactly a fan. So going into Action Comics, I can’t say I was expecting much. A steel jawed, holier than thou, overpowered living tank. Instead, what I got was a Superman who is fighting against corruption, both as himself, and as Clark Kent, a journalist exposing corruption where he can. I got a Superman who starts off as he did right back at the beginning; able to “leap tall buildings in a single bound”. That’s right, he starts this book unable to fly! What’s more, by the end of the first issue we see him taken down, without resorting to something ridiculously overpowered, or to kryptonite.
So yeah, the first issue really piqued my interest. This was a version of Superman I could get behind! Now believe me, he’s still very powerful, and he still has that swagger, that sort of cocksure attitude. But he doesn’t come across as so sanctimonious this time, and it’s refreshing. We also meet Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, her father General Lane, and Lex Luthor in the first book, so a big chunk of the cast is established here. At the end of the third issue, we see the signs of a bigger threat, and that our old friend Lex is in league with something bigger.
These are spoiler light reviews, so I won’t go into too much detail of the plot after that, but it manages to keep moving, and to keep up my interest. Issue #9 was interesting, being set on Earth 23, and featuring a black version of Superman, who is also the President of the United States. It was definitely an interesting version of the character, and I’d not mind seeing more of him at some point. The rest of the book is good too, though I’m a little wary, since in the last issue we see Superman exhibiting exactly the kind of over the top abilities that made me dislike him in the first place. Hopefully this won’t be a continuing trend, or I may lose interest.
Artwise, this was a solid title. There wasn’t anything in particular that made me go slack jawed in wonder, but I certainly can’t pick out any flaws. It’s a good job on the art, and gives the book a suitable look for the story.
Overall, I’d place Action Comics at a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars, it would be a four, but there is some stuff in the middle of the run I found a little less compelling than the rest. Either way, I’d recommend you pick it up, even if you’ve not cared much for Superman in the past.
Suicide Squad Writer: Adam Glass Artist: Federico Dallocchio
Suicide Squad follows a group of highly dangerous villains, let loose as a black ops task force. They’ve got bombs implanted in them in case they decide to disobey orders, and they’re given the toughest, dirtiest missions.
This is one of those series where the premise sounds better than the actual outcome...at least that’s what the first issue or two made me feel. After it gets into the swing of things, I found myself enjoying it more, especially the banter between the characters. One thing needs to be clear though; this is not a book for the weak of constitution. There’s torture, bloody violence, and the characters are not what you would consider the most moral of people. If you can stomach that, you might find something to enjoy in this book. Try not to get too attached to the characters though, the turnover rate for the squad is pretty high!
The art in the series is pretty good, the colours especially. There’s never any problem differentiating characters, and it’s pretty consistent. I wouldn’t say it was the best art around, but it’s definitely not bad.
Issue #12 leaves us on quite a cliffhanger, and I’m looking forward to picking up #13 after the zero-issue of this month. Overall, I’d give the book 4/5 stars, though caution that it’s not for everyone.
World’s Finest Writer: Paul Levit Artists: George Perez, Kevin Maguire
This is one of the second wave of titles released to replace the cancelled ones, and is only four issues in at the moment. It features Huntress and Power Girl, both from the Earth-2 continuity, but stuck on Earth-1. Huntress is the daughter of Earth-2 Batman, and Power Girl is essentially the Earth-2 counterpart of Supergirl. The title has them not only performing heroics, but searching for a way home. The main thing to love about this title is the interplay between the two. I really like these characters, and their friendship. This title might be about dimensionally displaced heroines, but at its heart, its more about their friendship, made strong by the shared experience. That's not to say the heroics aren't fun, because they are. This is a fun book from cover to cover so far, with snappy dialogue, lovely art, and a well paced plot. The first issue does a good job of setting up the characters, and giving us some insight into their pasts, and this trend continues through the title.
The art on this title is gorgeous, the characters are well drawn, it’s very clean looking. But it’s the backgrounds that really drew my attention. Every last inch of space is used, and it makes for a very vibrant looking title, without looking crowded. There’s definitely some fanservice in these pages, but the women never feel objectified, probably due to the high amount of ass they’re kicking. Besides, with art this nice, I’m not complaining. The art for flashback sequences is handled by a different team, but it keeps much the same look and quality, the difference being a lighter and softer tone. It’s subtle, but effective, and really works well.
I’ll definitely keep reading this title for the foreseeable future, my only worry is that the search for a way home will become a tired macguffin, since presumably them finding it would mark the end of the series. Either way, it gets my vote for now, coming in at 4/5 stars.
I'm looking at two series this time around, both of the first wave of cancellations, meaning they only got eight issues apiece. Were they deserving of this fate? Let us see...
OMAC Writer: Dan DiDio Artist: Keith Giffen
Another character I wasn’t particularly familiar with, you have to credit DC, they did allow some lesser known characters the spotlight in the New 52. This is O.M.A.C. also known as the One Machine Attack Construct!
The first thing that’s obvious is the art. It’s well done, but is very clearly taking its cue from the original Jack Kirby OMAC run. So we have a very retro art style, but it’s fairly good looking, as long as that sort of thing is to your taste.
The majority of the first issue is one long action scene, and doesn’t really explain much. OMAC is Kevin Kho, and has been infected with a virus that can transform him into OMAC. As OMAC, he is under the command of a satellite called Brother Eye, which refers to itself in the third person; using ‘Eye’ instead of ‘I’. It’s cute the first time, but by the third time, it’s already obnoxious. So this title didn’t get off to a strong start for me, but a couple more issues in, and something clicked. This is a comic that not only looks old school, but reads like it too. It’s an old fashioned action filled comic, with all the slightly cheesy sensibilities of comics from that era. mIt takes on something of a monster of the week type format, though with an overarching plot running through it. We also get a crossover with Frankenstein: Agent of SHADE in issue #5 (Occasionally Monsters Accidentally Crossover), and an appearance from Superman in issue #7 (Overnight, Mysterious Animals Converse). The run ends at issue #8, with Brother Eye being destroyed, and giving Kevin control over OMAC, but no way to turn back.
This series is okay, but not great. The relationship between Brother Eye and Kevin is interesting, and the art is good. But there’s too much action and too little plot. I can see why this book was cancelled, but it’s certainly not the worst title of the bunch. I’d give it 3/5 stars.
Hawk and Dove Writer: Sterling Gates Artist: (sigh) Rob Liefeld
I’ll admit, I suspected I wouldn’t like this going in. I’m not a fan of Rob Liefeld’s art. So that killed half the book for me already. But what about the writing? Maybe that would save it? First things first: I was right about the art. Characters look permanently constipated, the facial expressions are weird, characters hairstyles change from panel to panel, it;s the typical Liefeld stuff, and if you’ve seen it before, you probably know if you like it or not.
Storywise, it’s forgettable. It hits predictable story beats one after the other. The dialogue varies from average to hackneyed to cringeworthy. We get a crossover with Batman later, much like with OMAC, I feel as if the crossovers are a desperate try to pull in more readers to a failing book. The rest of the series finishes off in a similarly dull way. The last issue feels particularly rushed, with them having to end the series there.
Overall, I say avoid this one, unless you’re a huge Liefeld fan. It gets 1.5/5 stars from me.
Aquaman Writer: Geoff Johns Artists: Ivan Reis, Rod Reis, Joe Prado
Aqua Man has, for a long time, been something of a joke to comic book fans. Characterised as having silly super-powers, and not taken seriously at all. That’s pretty much how I viewed him too. Then this series came along. In the first issue, we have Aquaman stopping a crime, only to be laughed at by the police. In another great scene, he goes into a fish restaurant to order fish and chips, only to face the amazed reactions of the other diners. The first issue was a really strong opener, with the ending showing some hideous sea creatures attacking a fishing boat. The storyline also deals with his past, and with the truth behind the event that sank Atlantis. We also get some information on a team called The Others that Aquaman was part of six years prior to the series. I don’t know enough about Aquaman to say whether these are new characters or not, but they seem interesting, as does finding out more about Aquaman’s past, which seems a little less than happy. There are a few problems here and there, a couple of issues are a little action heavy, and light on the character development, and the forced exposition of Vostok’s backstory made me cringe. But overall, the plot is compelling, the characters are very easy to become interested in, and I can’t wait to continue reading this series.
The art on this title is fantastic, the water effects, the sea-monsters, the characters themselves. It’s consistent, the colouring is great. Of the New 52 titles, this is definitely my favourite title art-wise, almost every page took my breath away, and when that continued even past the first issue, I was amazed that they were able to turn out this quality of work each month. There are some fantastic splash pages in there too, ones that made me stop just to stare at them. I’m usually more interested in the writing than the art when it comes to comics, but the art on this book is too good to not spend some time just soaking it in.
Overall, I’d probably say this is my favourite series of the entire New 52. If you haven’t read this, you need to, and it gets 5/5 stars from me. I really hope the quality of this title can be maintained once the current team leaves it after issue #16, it has managed to turn Aquaman from a joke into a nuanced hero to be taken seriously, in my eyes at least.
Just over a year ago, DC launched the New 52. Relaunching their universe with a whole new set of #1 issues, and resetting or altering much of the tangled continuity. It was touted as being a great place for new readers to jump on. As someone who never read much DC, I decided that I would take advantage of that opportunity. I decided to read all of the New 52 titles for the year, then decide how I felt.
So, a year later, how has it fared? What titles are must reads, and what didn't I care for? As a whole has it been successful?
In a series of posts, I'm going to cover all of the New 52 titles, looking over the past year, and trying to come to a conclusion on all of them. Some will be longer, whereas shorter reviews will be grouped together. Once I cover them all, I'll give the rundown on what I think about the overall effectiveness and success of the idea.
The first title I'm going to cover is Animal Man, a surprise contender for my favourite of the lot.
Animal Man Writer: Jeff Lemire Artist: Travel Foreman, Steve Pugh
Animal Man wasn’t a character I was familiar with prior to the New 52. As such, I didn’t really have any expectations for this book, and from the name, it sounded somewhat lame. So I was pleasantly surprised when this turned out to be one of my favourite books of the New 52.
Animal Man is very well written, with creative use of his powers, and a story that is much more personal than just your average superhero derring-do. It revolves more around Animal Man (Buddy Baker’s) family than anything, with his daughter beginning to manifest powers greater than his. He discovers that she is an avatar of the force which gives him his power, called ‘The Red’. Unfortunately, agents of the corrupt power called ‘The Rot’ are after her. It’s nice to see a book where the hero’s family are involved, rather than being relegated to side characters sitting at home, and they behave in a pretty believable way too. I don't want to spoil the plot, but suffice to say the family plays a big part, and it's very much a personal struggle for Buddy.
The series ties in with the Swamp Thing series, with Swamp Thing being an agent of ‘The Green’, the third in the triptych of natural powers featured in the series known as 'The Balance'. There's also an appearance put in by the Justice League: Dark characters.
I wasn’t a huge fan of the art style in this book to start with, but by the time I was a couple of issues in, it had grown on me. I’m still not a fan of the appearance of the human characters, especially their facial expressions though, they’re expressive enough, but fairly ugly, and while they work on some characters, on others, especially the younger characters, they make the character look too old, or simply look out of place. The art really works well in some places though, particularly some of the more creepy imagery that’s prevalent in the book, of which there’s a lot, with some fairly graphic body-horror stuff, and Foreman manages to make it look very good. The animals are also drawn very well, which is something of a necessity what with how heavily they’re featured. There’s some variation in the artist in later issues, with Steve Pugh taking over the interior art from Travel Foreman. Personally, though I think Foreman did an excellent job on the body horror of the early issues, I find Pugh’s style to be cleaner, and more consistent in terms of the characters’ appearance. The animals are still well drawn, and the more graphic segments are less prevalent in the later issues anyway, though Pugh still does a good job when it’s called for. Overall, this is definitely worth picking up, and I'll be continuing to read this title. It gets 4/5 stars for me, and with the Pugh art, probably upgrades to a 4.5/5. Join me next time, for another look at DC's New 52, one year on.
We all know somebody like this, right? Or maybe you ARE the person like this? Someone who likes things more, or even specifically BECAUSE they're not well known, they're not mainstream.
If you're reading this, you're probably a geek. The clue is kind of in the blog's name. Geeks are especially prone to this particular attitude.
It can make it seem like you're doing it just to be different, and maybe there's some truth to that. But you know what? It's okay. It's as valid a reason to like something as any other. If you'd rather listen to J-Pop and Arabic dance music, if you'd rather watch some indie film than the latest summer blockbuster, that's fine. It's can be nice, that feeling, as if there's a big secret, and you're one of the few people in on it. It's great when you share some band or book and someone likes it, but it's even better when it's something obscure, because you get the feeling they'd never have found it otherwise.
Obscure crossovers are the best.
The communities and fandoms that spring up around such things can be great too. If you take a look at the upper end of this, the things that have large followings, but are still something the mainstream never really clicked with, you have things like Community, and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Both shows with great fandoms, with friendly creative people. But there's also something to be said for those fandoms that might consist of seventeen people on a forum. There's a certain "we have to stick together" vibe that these sorts of groups have that can make it a great community.
It's okay to not like things as much because they're mainstream too. Now, don't go denying yourself something you like just because it's mainstream, and don't go hating something you've never experienced for yourself just because you want to be contrary. Give things a fair chance at least. But there's definitely some merit to the argument that overexposure can make you dislike something, and if you're of a certain mindset, the feeling that you're being pushed to like something can make you resent it all the more.
So yeah, it's cool to be different. In this day and age, where so much media is available at the click of a button, where the smallest niche group can find a place for itself through the magic of a worldwide community with a network of instant communication, in such an environment you SHOULD be exploring those niches. Why settle for just the things that are flashing in our faces and being sold to us in every possible way the producers of it know? Don't get me wrong, like that if you want, there's plenty of mass media that I love. But search out those niches, look for those things with tiny audiences. If you keep looking, you may find something that just really gels with your tastes.
Mass media is great sometimes. But the thing about mass media is it has to sell to the masses. This means that most of the time, the extremes are shaved off, until it's rounded with no sharp edges. It has to appeal to everyone without alienating them. This means that some of those things you really love, but most people don't? They probably don't make it in. It's either that, or a product is so hyped and oversold, that people start to like it because they're told they should. Now if it's designed to appeal to the majority, everyone will probably fall into that majority at some point. But the thing about those little specific pieces of work that aren't made for mass consumption? They can cover ground mass market stuff would never touch, and you might just find something in there that speaks to you and connects with you on a deep level. Or you may just get a kick out of songs about Mr. Potato Head and erotic zombie fiction. Both ways work.
But as much as I'm saying it's not only okay, but actually a good thing to take this attitude, there is a dark side to this attitude, and it's something I really wish we could see the end of. It's that sneering attitude that crops up in a few types of situation. It's when the masses actually take notice of something we thought was cool, or when someone really does genuinely like something you consider to be artificially popular tripe. It's that snide attitude of "I liked it first, so I'm better than you" or "You like THAT? Well that's fine I guess, if you've got no taste..." or the ever charming "that's not for you, it's not for the mainstream, you wouldn't understand it". This attitude is just destructive. I understand the slightly defensive or alarmed feeling that can happen when something that was a niche suddenly takes off into the public consciousness. I saw it happen when casual gaming suddenly became a huge part of my beloved video-game hobby.
Yes, it really happened. It was even an unlockable costume in a couple of the old video-games!
But you have options; you can embrace it, and welcome the newcomers. Instead of sneering that someone only likes Spider-Man because of the new movie, you can tell them what else is cool about him, and offer to show them the time he had to wear a paper bag on his head because he lost his mask, or explain to them why you loved the old costume with the webbed armpits. If you really can't bring yourself to do this, you can carry on liking it, but just keep quiet about it, smile and nod. Or you can even leave it behind, and find something else to like. Just don't start with the hate, or the sneering condescending patronising attitudes. Be nice. And, in ten years time, you can tell people you were reading my blog before it was cool.
Like a lot of people, I like Spider-Man. I grew up with the comic books and with the 1990's animated series. When they announced a film was being made, I was excited. I went to see all three of the previous run of Spider-Man movies at the theatre. I enjoyed all of them, but like a lot of people, I was disappointed with the third. They tried to do too much in there, some of the choices they made baffled me, and I didn't enjoy it near as much as the first two.
Fast-forward to the present day, and we have another Spider-Man film on the way. The Amazing Spider-Man will be hitting cinema screens soon, and once again I'm excited. But I'm even more excited for this one than I was for the previous ones. From the trailers, and the press releases and so on, there's some things that really get my fanboy juices flowing. These are five reasons I think The Amazing Spider-Man is going to be an amazing film.
Gwen Stacy
Don't get me wrong, I like Mary-Jane as much as the next guy, but I've always had a soft spot for Gwen. Apart from featuring in one of the most memorable and tragic events of the Spider-Man comics, she was also a good character and an important part of the Spider-Man story. It was a shame to see her ousted in favour of MJ in the previous films, and I'll be glad to see her get her time to shine in this film. It also opens up possibilities for a future film focusing on her final, and most famous storyline. Not to mention that whereas I'm not a fan of Kirsten Dunst, whereas I think Emma Stone is a great actress.
Crackin' Wise
As I said, I grew up with the Spidey from the comics and the 90's cartoon. If there's one thing that Spidey did a LOT of in those, it was talk. He'd always be taunting and teasing his enemies in and out of fights. He was sarcastic, very flippant, and very funny. They captured that a little bit in the previous films, but not that much. From everything I've seen of the trailers of this one, that's not the case this time. Spidey looks like he's every bit as capable of slinging quips as webs this time around.
Amazingly Ultimate
Some elements of this movie have definitely been influenced by the Ultimate Spider-Man line of comics. From story elements, and elements of design. But plenty has also come from the Amazing Spider-Man line too. When the last line of films was in production, the Ultimate line of comics was only in its very early issues. I really like the Ultimate Spider-Man series, as well as the Amazing Spider-Man series, and I feel having both to draw on is something that gives this film a deeper pool from which to pull influences, and that if it's done right, which it seems like it's going to be, that will benefit the film.
Real Stunts
The previous films used a lot of CG for scenes involving Spidey swinging around. They looked great, and it was completely understandable for them to go that way. But this film isn't. This film has gone to great expense and effort to try and incorporate as much physical stuntwork as possible. They built huge rigs, and had guys actually swinging around. I'm always a fan of film-makers actually doing things rather than using CG where it's possible, so I'm really looking forward to the acrobatics and action scenes in this iteration of the Spidey franchise.
The Lizard
As a character, and in terms of story, Marvel's, and Spider-Man's specifically, strengths have always lain in their ability to make the characters feel very real. It's not just black and white morality, it's not simply moustache twirling villains and square jawed two-fisted action heroes. And of all Spidey's rogue's gallery, I feel the Lizard is the best to show this. Sure, Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and others have elements of tragedy to their past. But Doctor Connors' transformation into The Lizard has always struck me as perhaps the most tragic. It'll be great to see if they do it justice in this movie.
So there we have some of the reasons why I think this film is going to be great. If you're still not convinced, I'd just like to point out that the director of the film is called Mark Webb. Mark WEBB. It has GOT to be a sign!
Cartoons! Madcap antics, slapstick comedy, wacky hi-jinks and more! Continuing from part one, here are nine more cartoons I watched and loved as a kid! Unlike the last part, there's no particular theme to this list, I just picked nine at random, as such these aren't ranked either, they're listed in order of when they first aired. So here we go, nine more nostalgic animated shows from my youth!
Peter Pan and The Pirates (1990-1991)
This was not based on the far more well known Disney adaptation of Peter Pan, about which I am fairly indifferent. This show was entirely seperate, and featured different characterisations, more focus on the pirates beyond Captain Hook and Mr. Smee, and stuck more closely to the book than a lot of other adaptations. The animation was decent, but not spectacular, but the show featured some interesting character and location designs; Neverland was always interesting to look at.
Captain Hook and Peter Pan, talking
out their problems in a reasonable manner.
Captain James Hook was voiced by none other than Tim Curry, and he did a great job of it. Hook was a far more credible threat in this show than in most representations. All of the characters were really given time to develop over the series, and the interactions between them feel solid and real, with genuine motivations. The relationship between Peter and Hook is the one which really feels the most developed, as it should, and it's fun to see those two interacting.
I can't talk about this show without mentioning the excellent theme song (see above!). It really sets the pulse pounding and sets the mood to swashbuckling adventure. This may stem from the fact it seems to borrow very heavily from the music of the 1940s Errol Flynn movie 'The Sea Hawk' (If you want to see HOW closely, check it out here), nonetheless, it's one of my favourite cartoon openings.
James Bond Jr. (1991-1992)
Bond! James Bond Junior! This, like Peter Pan and the Pirates is another show that's maybe not too well remembered these days. It followed the adventures of James Bond Jr. Not 007's son, as you'd think from the name, but apparently his nephew. It followed the Bond formula to an extent, but without the sex and martinis.
James Bond Junior's version of Doctor
No; Dr. Oh Good Lord Why?!
Going back to watch this show now, it's not impressive. The opening theme is fun, if making it clear this show is very much in the early nineties mold. The show features several characters from the Bond films, and though some, like Goldfinger and Jaws, came through okay. Others, like Oddjob and Dr. No, did not. Bond Jr. himself looks fine. But he SOUNDS horrible, genuinely horrible. His attempt at a british accent is terrible. It's a shame, as the voice actor, Corey Burton has done some good work on other things (he's Ludwig von Drake!).
That said, it's not ALL horrible, though there's definitely nothing in the show that rises above being mediocre. Some of the gadgets are fun, but hardly mindblowing, and the action sequences are sometimes enjoyable, though there isn't a lot of action. The animation is a little odd (characters will NOT stay still, they're always moving their head or hands for no reason) but not terrible. Character designs range from meh through to bad. A lot of the characters are very nineties, we have the obvious geek, the surfer dude, and the annoying rich minor antagonist. So yeah, the show's pretty bad, though there's a scant few enjoyable moments. Mostly though, it's just dull, with wooden dialogue, and scenes that don't really go anywhere. This one, I'd just stick to watching the theme song, and then move on. Maybe watch some ACTUAL Bond movies instead, as this show will leave you needing to be shaken and stirred from the coma you'll lapse into.
Tintin (1991-1992)
A scene from Tintin. Or a dream I had
whilst in a fever. I'm not sure which.
Ah! Something to raise us out of our comas! Tintin is an animated show based on the series of graphic novels by Belgian author Herge. I was, and still am, a fan of the comics, and the show also manages to hold up today. It follows the adventures of Tintin, a young reporter. The character is a little bland personality-wise, but it makes it easier for the viewer to assume his position. Despite being fairly unassuming, he doesn't come over as boring, and there are plenty of exciting events and colourful characters around him to keep things interesting.This one was really beloved of me as a child, so I was glad to see it holds up. The animation is smooth, the voice acting is good, and the stories still hold up. I've yet to see the new film, fearing it will ruin a beloved franchise for me, but I'm glad to see this still reflects well on the Tintin name.
Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1995)
Harley Quinn actually originated on this
show. So creepy, yet so strangely
attractive...
Hoo boy, what can I say about this that hasn't been said already? Fantastic opening, good animation, oozes style, amazing voice talent, some of the best storytelling in cartoons. This show is smart, stylish, clever, and exciting. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill ARE Batman and the Joker to me. If you've not seen this, and you like Batman, comic books, or cartoons, then you should see it as soon as you can. If you don't like any of those things, odds are you're not reading this right now. I won't go into much depth, since this is such a well known show, but it receives the praise it does for a reason. Definitely worth a watch, or two. Or more.
Mighty Max (1993-1994)
This show was based on a range of pocket sized playsets I owned most of as a boy. It looks a little dated and nineties these days, but it's got a good voice cast (Tim Curry is the villain in this one too), the animation isn't bad, and the plots are enjoyable. It also has a pretty mature and deep ending (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!) in which Max, the protagonist, loses, his friends are killed, but he goes back in time to the first episode, saying that this time, he's going to get it right. Not a happy ending, nor the non-resolution that so many animated shows get.
Tim Curry: Stalking me through my
childhood cartoons.
The show followed Max; an adolescent boy, Virgil; a birdlike creature from Lemuria, and Norman; a viking warrior. They fought against the Skullmaster, played by Tim Curry, and sometimes other unrelated menaces. Max had a magic cap which could transport him through portals to various locations.
The character designs were pretty good, with some creative monsters, and the show had a dark edge to it that other shows lacked, often portraying death or violence. It was never grotesque about it, but it didn't shy from the realities of it either.
Animaniacs (1993-1998)
Along with Batman, probably my favourite animated show from when I was a kid. It holds up very well today, it's still funny, clever, and works on a variety of levels. They used the relative creative freedom given to them by Steven Spielberg's involvement, with him interceding on their behalf with the studio at times, and made this giant mish-mashed amalgam of old Looney Tunes style cartoon humour, music, pop culture references and variety show style schtick to create a show which had something for nearly everyone to enjoy.
Goodnight everybody!
From the adventures of the Warner Brothers (and the Warner Sister; Dot) to Pinky and the Brain, from Slappy Squirrel to the Wheel of Morality. The show just covered so much ground, managed comedy that appealed to young and old alike, snuck a lot past the censors, and just managed such high quality work, I doubt there'll ever be anything like it again.
If you're a fan, I highly recommend you check out the Animaniacs Tribute over on That Guy With The Glasses. It has interviews with the cast and creators, and really offers some insight into what went into that show.
Aaahh!!! Real Monsters (1994-1997)
Another of Tim curry's many forms.
This isn't the greatest show on the list, but it's nowhere near the worst. It was a fun show about monsters attending a school (run by an odd, Tim Curry-esque monster named The Gromble (ironically, his assistant WAS voiced by Tim Curry...man, that guy seems to pop up in a LOT of cartoons I watched...). The monster designs were creative, the show had an offbeat, slightly gross, sense of humour, and it was generally entertaining. It also took the idea of scaring people as being just a job for monsters and did it long before Monsters Inc. (still one of my least favourite Pixar films).
The animation was good, the voice acting was done well. It isn't a show that jumps out as being amazing, but it has aged well, and is still entertaining. I definitely enjoyed it as a kid, and it may just be that thegross out humour is something I've outgrown a bit. I certainly can't find anything bad to say about it though, so it definitely gets marked on the good side, rather than the James Bond Jun--sorry, I mean bad side.
The Mask: The Animated Series (1995-1997)
This, along with James Bond Junior, was a show I was expecting to have aged badly, or to simply not be as enjoyable as I remembered it being. Thankfully, as right as I was on James Bond Junior, I was just as wrong on this one. It's just as funny and energetic as I remember. It holds up as well as the movie, in fact, perhaps better, since 2D animation doesn't age in the same way as the CG in the film has aged.
Ssssmooookiiiin' ! #obviouscaption
Rob Paulsen provides the voice of Stanley/The Mask, and does a great job (as he once quipped, he does the same job as Jim Carrey, but for one tenth of the money). The rest of the voices are good, and most of the characters are recognisable from the movie. Things are a little toned down compared to the film, which itself was toned down from the comics, but only in as much as to make it a little more 'kid-friendly'. The slapstick humour, and mad fast paced antics are all intact, and still funny.
The Mask is definitely another one on the list which holds up in the current day, and I'd happily sit and rewatch it (and indeed, just spent an hour or so doing that!).
Fillmore! (2002-2004)
The final one on my list this time round, and far more recent than any of the others. This came after the point I'd stopped watching many cartoons, but it caught my eye thanks to having a younger sister in the house who still did. The fact I was a bit older is probably part of what made me love it, as I got a lot more of the references it made. I've always loved shows that pastiche genres or types of show/movie, if they do it well. That's exactly what Fillmore! does, taking buddy cop series and movies, as well as various other crime movies or tropes, and perfectly satirises them by reducing them down to the confines of a school safety patrol. So we get a Hannibal pastiche about graffiti, or a Gone in Sixty Seconds homage done with micro-scooters. Thee crimes were always reduced to the level that would only seem important to a school setting (instead of a pet being kidnapped, it's a tamagotchi style virtual pet, that sort of thing), but the show and the characters treated it as being entirely serious in the confines of the show. This is what made it work so well, and allowed the humour to work, though you still had one-liners and wisecracks. The show had an abundance of great chase scenes, and nods to so many pop culture elements, I suspect even I missed plenty.
Inter-racial buddy cop team hyper-force go!!!
It focused on reformed bad-boy, now safety patroller, Cornelius Fillmore, his partner Ingrid Third; the new girl in school with a photographic memory (and voiced by Tara Strong, whom regular readers will know is my favourite living voice actor and someone I have something of a not-so-hidden crush on). They have to answer to Junior Commissioner Vallejo, and above him, Principal Folsom. The parody elements are spot on, the show is entertaining, well written and acted, and has a bold art style. It sadly only made it to 26 episodes, perhaps as a result of being aimed a little too high for kids sometimes in the references it made. I mean, how many kids know who Hannibal Lecter is?
The opening theme was done by Ookla the Mok, something I only realised years later when I discovered them through unrelated means. I wish I had known and sought them out sooner, as the album it comes from (Super Secret, where it's the opening instrumental to Das Uber Tuber) is one of my favourite albums off all-time these days.
If this show was made today, I feel it might see more success, what with there being less animated shows for kids to compete with, and a larger proportion of adult cartoon fans. If nothing else, it would probably generate something of a cult following. It may have been ahead of its time.
So there we have nine more cartoons from my younger days. I'll be back soon, if not with more cartoons, then with more something. Until then, later days!
Over the past year or so, I've taken to listening to podcasts quite a bit. There's some fun, informative, funny stuff out there, but there's also a lot of crap. So with that said, these are my favourite few podcasts, though I'm sure there are many out there I have yet to discover.
Major Spoilers/Critical Hit/Top Five
These three are lumped together because they're all run by the same site, and feature the same hosts (with a couple of extra in Critical Hit). Major Spoilers is a podcast about comic book news and reviews, and has led to me reading a lot of stuff I might not otherwise have found, as well as helped me with last year's christmas shopping. Critical Hit is an actual play D&D podcast, and is not only an interesting story with a great DM, but inspired me to start a regular game up with some friends. Top Five is exactly what it sounds like; a show in which the hosts give their top five in the episode's chosen topic. What makes these three shows great is the hosts, they're knowledgable about the subjects, have a good presence and personality behind the mic, and are usually pretty funny to boot. I recommend giving any of these three shows a look over at Major Spoilers.
Filmsack
Join Scott Johnson (of Extra Life fame), and his fellow hosts Brian Ibbott, Brian Dunaway, and Randy Jordan as they mine the very depths of film entertainment. Each week, they pick a film (usually from Netflix, though as the UK lineup to Netflix is different from the US one, it doesn't make a difference to me) and watch it, they then discuss it at depth, often going off on random tangents. The podcast is great for film fans, and it's obvious that the hosts are all film buffs, but it's also a funny show with lively and enjoyable hosts. Check it out here.
The Nerdist
This podcast, hosted by Chris Hardwick, is generally based on interviews with various celebrities, nerd icons, and interesting people. Interview might be the wrong word though, as they feel more like a conversation, and often wander off in odd directions. Worth a listen due to a great lineup of guests, and some really interesting stories (such as the time Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller fame, once wrestled a naked little person in a pool of corn starch). Find it here!
Talking Toons
Talking Toons is hosted by Rob Paulsen, voice of Pinky, Yakko, two of the Ninja Turtles, and a whole host of other characters. It focuses on interviews with his friends in the voice acting industry, and has had some really interesting and funny guests. The behind the scenes stuff is fascinating, the guests are interesting, and since they're all his friends, the tone of the show is very relaxed. Check it out over at Rob's site.
Hypothetical Help
Another Scott Johnson podcast, this time with co-host Turpster. The two of them answer three listeners requests for advice on almost any situation each show. The advice is often funny, sometimes tongue in cheek, and surprisingly also manages to be sound advice, most of the time. I like that this podcast does something different, and the hosts have great chemistry. Check it out here!
Those are my picks, and I urge you to go give them a listen. If you have any podcasts you enjoy, please give them a shout-out in the comments, I'm always looking for new podcasts to feast my ear-tongues on.
When I was a kid, I watched cartoons. I think most of us did, right? Talking to people these days, it seems a lot of people agree with me; kid's tv these days is worse. The focus has moved from cartoons to formulaic live action stuff. What cartoons there are are generally not great. But this post (or soon to be series of posts) aren't to complain about the state of kid's television today. It's to remember what it used to be like, when I was growing up in the nineties and early part of the two thousands. This first post is going to concentrate on the cartoons from Cartoon Network, specifically the ones under the 'Cartoon Cartoon' brand. This was Cartoon Network's own brand of original cartoons.
It consisted of fifteen different cartoons, however some of these I'm not at all familiar with. It may be because they were after my time, or perhaps they weren't aired here in the UK. Or maybe I just missed them. So the following Cartoon Cartoons will NOT be included in my list: Sheep in the Big City, Time Squad, Whatever Happened to...Robot Jones?, and Codename: Kids Next Door. further, I'm only familiar with The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, which was originally part of a show called Grim & Evil, I'm not familiar with the Evil Con Carne part of the show. So of the fifteen, that leaves me with nine which I'm actually familiar with from when I was a youngling. So I will be ranking these nine in order of my favourite, from least to most!
Nine - Ed, Edd n Eddy
I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this one. I know this show has a lot of fans, but it's one that I was not only never able to get into, but which I really disliked. The ugly character designs, the weird constantly moving lines of the animation style, the grating character voices, the incredibly dumb main characters (I get that one of them was supposed to be intelligent, but anybody who goes along with the other two characters and their schemes is a far cry from being accepted into MENSA in my book). This show has its fans, but it's about as far from my tastes as you can get. I'm also one of the few people with a strong dislike for Spongebob based on very similar reasons as my dislike for this show. Either way, this show gets the bottom spot on my list.
Eight - Mike, Lu and Og
This show nearly got put into the "I never watched this" list, before I watched the opening theme, and vaguely remembered it. It follows the character Mike, a girl who as part of an exchange program goes to live on a remote island populated by stereotypical tribe-like natives. I honestly don't remember much about this show at all. The complete lack of impression it made on me puts it this low on the list, simply because I can't think of anything to make it rank higher. If you're a fan of this show, then sorry, but it obviously didn't grab me in any particular way.
Seven - I Am Weasel
This show revolved around the character I. R. Baboon's attempts to usurp and upstage the popular, intelligent, all around good guy I. M. Weasel. Weasel is smart, generous, talented. Baboon is not. The shows themself weren't terrible at all, but the concept got old fairly quickly, and they all felt a bit samey. The theme song manages to get stuck in my head with surprising ease though.
Six - Cow and Chicken
Mama had a chicken, mama had a cow, Dad was proud, he didn't care how. That line from the opening song is about as much of a plot as you get in this show. I Am Weasel was in fact a spin-off from this show, and I feel the main show was a bit funnier than I Am Weasel. I wasn't a huge fan, though I do appreciate the surreal nature, as it's something I like in some other cartoons I really enjoy. The show followed the adventures of Cow and Chicken, a brother and sister duo, and most often dealt with them running foul of The Red Guy, a demon like character which may or may not be a Satan analogue. I liked some of the weird humour in this show, and some of the characters were pretty funny, like The Red Guy, or their cousin Boneless Chicken (a chicken with no bones...why? Who knows, the show was just like that). Jokes like the parents literally only existing from the waist down, making fun of the tendency of parents to appear like that in many cartoons, or Cow having a superhero alter-ego, who for some reason was fluent in Spanish made little sense, but they got a laugh out of me. Still, overall, this ranks pretty low on my list, partially because I feel a lot of the humour fell kind of flat, and partially because I felt other shows did the surreal humour thing better, stuff like Ren and Stimpy, or Freakazoid!
Five - The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy
In this show, the Grim Reaper loses a bet over the life of a hamster, and as a result is forced to be the best friend of two children 'forever and ever'. The children are the incredibly unintelligent Billy (his IQ is given as -5, he was outperformed in the IQ test by a shovel) and the cynical and domineering Mandy. It's an interesting concept for a show, and allows them to explore odd and supernatural stories. I feel like this show might be higher on the list, but it came about towards the tail end of my days of regularly watching cartoons, and as such, I don't have such a sense of nostalgia for it. Nonetheless, it was still pretty enjoyable.
Four - Dexter's Lab
The story of a diminutive boy genius and his hyperactive sister, who screws up his plans at every juncture. Dexter's Lab is one of the first shows to spring to mind when you think of Cartoon Network (and it was in fact the first of the Cartoon Cartoons). The boy who has a vast laboratory hidden under the house, and the mad science he gets up to there; it's a simple concept, but it left a lot of scope for plots, be they ones revolving around mad science, the brother sister dynamic, or Dexter's rival boy scientist, the evil Mandark. It was a clever show, and generally funny, as well as usually full of interesting visuals. To this day, one thing bugs me though...why DID Dexter have an accent, when the rest of his family did not?
Three - Johnny Bravo
So, given my earlier proclamation of disliking shows where the main characters are dumb, why does this rank so highly? Well, there are always exceptions to a rule, and I think the performance given to Johnny transcends my usual dislike. Jeff Bennett gave a wonderful performance, a sort of Elvis Presley type voice, but with a slight hint of child-like naivety. This great portrayal, combined with some clever writing made this a really funny show. Fun fact, it's also a show that Seth McFarlane mainly worked on, though he did work on Dexter's Lab, Cow and Chicken and I Am Weasel too. Seth later went on to create Family Guy. Butch Hartman, who also worked on this, went on to create Fairly Odd-Parents. So there was some decent talent behind this. Whatever the reason, this show was funny enough to get into the top three, and should celebrate; come on, do the monkey!
Two - The Powerpuff Girls
Number two on this list, and probably one some people were hoping would be number one. The show follows the adventures of the Powerpuff Girls; a trio of superpowered young girls created by Professor Utonium, who kept the Townsville safe from various villains. It had clever writing, a great cast of voice actors, and was entertaining for both kids and adults. This show had genuinely great humour. The show was full of pop culture references and sly humour, and the cast of characters were entertaining and creative. My particular favourites were the villains Mojo Jojo and Him. It's also probably the first show I watched to feature one of my favourite voice actors; the lovely Tara Strong as Bubbles. A fun fact is that the show was developed from a short called Whoopass Stew! and the girls were originally going to be called the Whoopass Girls.The original short can still be viewed on youtube. Now, on to number one! Those who know the Cartoon Cartoons will, by process of elimination, know what it is, if not, I'm gonna tell you!
One - Courage the Cowardly Dog
This is it, the top dog (pun intended). Courage was a strange show. It had a small cast, was creepy as hell, and unlike pretty much everything on this list, it wasn't really a show that was intended to be funny. But it gets the top spot because it was really unique. It centred on the titular Courage, who lived with his owners; the sweet and kind Muriel and her curmudgeonly husband Eustace. The show generally followed a monster of the week format, but the creatures they came across were usually genuinely creepy and weird. The show had an odd pacing, and the strangeness of it all probably put people off too. But I loved the atmosphere, as well as the way it played with B-Movie style plots and tropes. If you can hunt it down, in some form, I definitely recommend watching it, if you haven't already.
Hopefully my list awoke some nostalgic memories in you, or at least interested you somewhat. If not, then congrats for reading this far. Hopefully I'll be covering other cartoons in future posts, so keep your eyes peeled!
Games as art. It’s been a big, and contentious, topic for a while now. On the one hand you have the recent influx of indie designers, you have the games that are being praised for their message, or their method, being artistic. On the other hand, you have people like Jonathan Blow, praised for his artistic games like Braid, and the upcoming The Witness, saying that games are mostly dumb and juvenile (link) and famed film critic Roger Ebert claiming games are not, nor ever will be, art.
So who is right? Are games a burgeoning art form, coming into their own as an artistic medium, capable of deep and meaningful expressions alongside the mainstream point and shoot games, much like movies such as The Artist and Battleship can exist side by side? Or are games doomed to be mere entertainment, with no chance of being anything that can be considered art?
If you ask me, or even if you don’t, I feel that games are capable of being art. But I feel that a lot of the critics who say otherwise are somewhat missing the point. A game is a much longer experience than a movie. It’s often longer than a book also. And they are primarily entertainment. So a game does not need to be simply artistic expression from start to finish. There needs to be room for entertainment, as well as for artistic expression. I also think that the constant comparisons to movies do nothing to help the matter. Games are not movies, they are games. They’re inherently interactive. I feel that the best examples of artistic expression in games are ones which use the mechanics or limitations of a game to their advantage. When the very act of playing the game is forcing you to experience it in a way that is unique to games. We shouldn’t be looking for the Citizen Kane of games, because Citizen Kane would make a horrible game. We should be looking for gaming’s own examples of art.
I respect Roger Ebert as a film critic, but when it comes to games, it’s very clear that it is not his wheelhouse, and that it is probably too late to teach that old dog new tricks. That’s fine, he’s entitled to his tastes, and to his opinions. I bear him no malice at all for his borderline insulting words to one of my hobbies and passions, because I realise he is approaching it from a completely different outlook to me. Jonathan Blow I have a little less understanding for. Braid was great, and I think it was a great example of the mechanics of a game expressing something in a unique way. But from the interviews I’ve read with him, and profiles I’ve read of him, he comes across as being arrogant, pretentious, and dismissive.
So I said that the art in games should come from the mechanics themselves. What do I mean by this? I mean that although in a book, narrative is the main form of interaction, and the way in which the artistic message is conveyed, and in film it is through the script, the visuals, the filming techniques, in games though, the primary form of interaction is just that; interaction. Games are all about player agency. So what games can I point to for examples of what I mean? There are several, though I warn you that spoilers for various games may lie ahead, though I’ll try to be circumspect.
I mentioned Braid already, and it is a good example, the game’s time bending mechanics are used to great effect in the finale of the story, giving a genuinely enjoyable moment of revelation to the player. There are deeper messages and allegories in the game too, but to me, the real triumph of art was that one section where the mechanics of play were used to deliver that memorable scene.
Another good example is Bioshock. It does indeed deliver on the levels of aesthetics and narrative. Of note is the way that much of the background to the story is delivered through exploration, rather than cutscenes. There are certainly scenes in there that lend themselves to a more conventional definition of art. I found certain scenes particularly striking, like the large fight to the strains of Walt of the Flowers, taking place in a dark room while a spotlight centres on you. It creates a memorable scene, and one which I would argue is artistic in its execution. But the scene I would really point at is the one in which you finally confront Andrew Ryan. Control is taken from the player at a pivotal point, and you’re forced to watch as it happens. It makes the plot twist, and the scene far more powerful than it would have been otherwise, and far more powerful than it would have been in a movie or a book, because it’s happening to the player, using the interface the player has come to take for granted, which is exactly what is happening to the character. And isn’t that what art is? Art is hard to define, but delivering a message or an experience through clever use of the tools, resources and materials available is as good a definition as any other I’ve heard.
Both my examples so far are from games which have been praised for their artistic value already in some way, so for my third I’ll go a bit farther afield. Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core. This isn’t a game that would generally come up as a discussion of games as art. But its final battle is one of the best examples I can think of. Spoilers ahead! The game is a prequel to Final Fantasy VII, and anybody who has played that knows that Zack is going to die at the end of this game. The fatal battle comes up, but it’s executed amazingly. Through the game, the battle system has had the DMW, or Digital Mind Wave, system. This resembles a slot machine, with other characters faces on it. These represent memories of those characters, and are used for special attacks and so on. In the final battle, you’re facing a stream of enemy soldiers, an endless one. As you fight, and are injured, the DMW becomes shaky, as if it’s malfunctioning. As your consciousness fades, the faces of your friends and allies fade from the DMW, until you’re left seeing only the face of Aerith, your love interest in the game, Zack’s final memory as he dies (particularly sad, since in FFVII, you find that Aerith never learns of his death, and has been left always wondering what happened to him). This creates a really poignant scene, the DMW has only been a mechanic through the game, the tie to memories and so forth seems nothing more than window dressing...until this scene.
There are other examples I could use, but hopefully I’ve explained what it is that makes a game art. The melding of the playing and the experience, using the unique qualities of games to enhance and complement the experience, rather than simply as a means to an end. To me, examples like this are why I feel I can say yes, games are capable of being art, and artistic moments can already be seen throughout gaming.
