Sundown

Saw it last night... don't read if you care to see the movie fresh, unhampered by someone else's opinion. It was good to see Supes back on the screen... Routh actually does a better Superman than Clark Kent, which surprised me, since I was expecting it to be the other way around. He has a presence that I wasn't expecting, and when I stopped comparing him with Reeves, he was actually a pretty believable Superman. His Clark Kent was a little dissapointing, mainly because he didn't get very many lines, and because the Lois-Kent relationship was written so that Lois hardly seems to even know Kent. She's always so distracted and aloof, and Bosworth's performance so serious that it's hard to enjoy what could have been a fun, awkward dynamic. The two don't share the familiar chemistry from the old movies this one is supposed to be taking its cues from, but then again, Clark's been gone five years. The movie's pacing caused it to drag on a bit... it felt like it wasn't edited as tightly as it should have been, and the fact that there was about 1/2 a second of silence too long in every scene really took away the energy from a lot of the movie. And some of the cuts were jarring and didn't make sense dramatically to me. Didn't help that none of the actors carried any genuine enthusiasm or energy in their deliveries and even Spacey was a little bit dissapointing. Then again he wasn't given that much dialogue to work with in the first place. And for those who care, there wasn't much squinting, and I stopped noticing the gripes I had with the costume a bit into the movie. They really weren't that big a deal, and watching Supes fly again to William's old soundtrack is still stirring. There are some breathtaking sequences that for me made the movie, even if I would have liked to see a lot of things done differently, but in the end, it was a decent ride, if slow and faltering in parts.

Saw it last night. Thought it incredibly well done, and was surprised just how much of it was geared at adults. After reading some of your comments, I'm now realizing how little there was for the kids. I'm not that big a car nut, but I know about and appreciate enough of auto racing that the movie still sucked me in, and I loved the detail and realism that the movie captured despite being a animation with kiddie aesthetics. Was cool seeing little details the cars in the race swerving back and forth in the beginning of the race to warm their tires, and I really appreciated the nostalgic history lesson on Route 66 and the old car culture that I never quite understood till now. And I recognized the Rust-eze guys as Click and Clack, but not until they said their "Don't drive like my brother" line.

Just so we're clear, let's not confuse the artists with the media being used. If an artist really wants to, they can do some great things with digital colouring. It's just that digital colouring, much like digital animation, also allows for a lot of shortcuts not available with traditional media. If an artist is willing to forego those shortcuts, digital colouring can be every bit as "dark and gritty" as inks and watercolours. Oh I know that. I'm just bitter about how the popular "comic look" tends to look and how pervasive those canned shortcuts are.

I guess we're pretty much saying the same thing. Questioning is good, initiative is good, and thinking is good. And I can totally see the appeal of the lone wolf. I just don't quite understand why all your examples of legitimate questioning must necessarily be by loners, when examples, both in fiction and real life show plenty of other personalities that do the exact same thing. The Lone Gunmen from the X-Files are three decidedly un-loner, un-macho, concerned citizens who rightfully question the government and attempt to expose conspiracies for what they are. They're even fun to watch, or at least fun enough to get their own TV show, which, unfortunately got cancelled after awhile. Again, doesn't take a loner. I give you many disillusioned war vets who have done plenty of questioning, many of them who fought for and alongside others, and many of them who aren't loners. No, I've already agreed repeatedly that questioning is a good thing, and not following orders when those orders shouldn't be followed is a good thing. The only thing I'm hoping that you would concede is that it doesn't always require a "jerk" or a loner to do so (as much as that sort of personality might help), because if it did, it necessarily means that everyone else is an idiot. That sort of flies in the face of other fictional characters the same way it flies in the face of reality. You do seem very focused on just one type of character personality, when some of the same things you value are key to characters like the Lone Gunmen, Superman, Stabler and Benson, Gloval, Hikaru, and so forth. One of my favorite characters is Yang Wen Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Brilliant tactician who'd rather study history than make it. He's a team player and reluctant leader, but still manages to be an innovative, independent thinker who accurately perceives how to win battles as well as he perceives what makes people tick. He can see the validity of opposing viewpoints and can express them so well you think he's bought into them. He's obeyed orders that he's disagreed with, because he recognizes that it's his duty and responsibility, and what he signed up for when he accepted his post-- and that as right as he might be, he knows that the Alliance can't survive if orders could be disobeyed on a whim, so he makes his objections, retreats when he'd rather attack, and plans for the future. He thinkingly obeys orders he'd rather not, because he regards the big picture and holds his personal commitments sacred. There are probably orders that he wouldn't follow, but few orders that he disagrees with would actually qualify. And when some in his own government attempt to assasinate him, he remains loyal to the Alliance, still planning, because its still democracy's best hope. I guess I just tend to be drawn towards characters that can think for themselves and recognize the idiocy in a lot of things, but haven't withdrawn and haven't given up on dealing with other people and the system, however stupid they and it are. And I would agree that a lone-wolf mentality paired with a rightful distrust of authority makes for a compelling character. I just don't think the former has an exclusive monopoly of the latter or that they necessarily mean the same thing. If Solid Snake needed help against Liquid, he would be less of a man, because he would have needed help against a clone of himself. Now I wouldn't fault him for needing help against a walking tank of nuclear destruction, and in fact, thought it rediculous and borderline stupid that Raiden would take on 30 of them by himself. Oh, and the Ninja/Grey Fox actually sacrifices himself so Snake could destroy Metal Gear Rex. So he didn't quite do it alone.

Actually, I was satisfied just because Snake is a bad ass and looks cool doing what he does best, not because he's a loner. He's so bad ass that he doesn't even fear having credit robbed from him, and he isn't so insecure that he has to work alone. Credit doesn't matter. Only the mission does. Sounds a little like a certain Cyclops I know. That's why he eventually lets Otacon, Meryl, and Raiden tag along, and if he doesn't, it's mainly for their own good or because he's afraid they'd get in the way. Even playing as Raiden, and helping Snake, you couldn't help but feel how big a badass he was, and that you wish you were playing him instead. If Kojima did anything right, it's making us envy Snake even as his companion. I also think hostage rescue teams are badasses, and just because they actually have to cooperate and work together to save lives in extreme situations doesn't lessen their accomplishment any. It's kind of funny that you mention Snake not receving any help, when he in fact receives constant help through his codec, and sometimes even has to be told out to eat, how to fire his weapon, how to do a pullup, and how to make himself throw up when he eats something he shouldn't have. And again, I'm not sure why you equate lone wolf and tough guy with questioning authority, and why questioning must necessitate being a gruff, private, loner. I mean, there's probably some correlation between questioning and personality type, but I personally question authority as a rule (even while acknowledging the validity of their principles) and I've never felt the need to chomp on cigars or do the tough guy bit when I do.

Yeah, the old Lee X-men pages just looked sooo goood, and his pencils worked especially well with the muted flat tones and old newsprint. I also feel that his proportions were a lot more accurate back then than they are now. For someone who's supposed to draw the best women in comics, he sure draws more stiff poses and makes more anatomic errors than I expect.

Protecting others and self-sacrifice can be a teaching and an ideal itself, so, I think we invariably follow one teaching or another. It might seem like "common sense" to some, but the drive towards self-preservation and self-benefit appears to be a whole lot more common. In fact, it's so rare and uncommon that we need heroes, both fictional and real, to exemplify and live it out for us. Anyway, I guess what you're saying here is that you place protection of others as a higher ideal than say peaceful human/mutant co-existence. Guess that makes sense. But Xavier probably believes that if peaceful co-existence and understanding isn't established, many more will suffer and die than just his own friends, and that's something he can't live with. Of course. What if your friends were wounded and retreating, and Cyclops ordered you to stay, knowing that the cost of losing the battle would mean the untold suffering of yet others-- but you yourself knew that if you stayed, your friends might perish while retreating without your aid? What if Cyclops wasn't set up like a patsy, only ever giving one-sided orders we'd disagree with-- but instead, gave orders that made us choose between one ideal, protecting our friends, and another ideal, protecting those you were fighting for in the first place? Just because Cyclops isn't as entertaining a character doesn't mean that he's only allowed give stupid orders for us to disagree with all the time, just so we can go nuts about Wolverine. And if that's all he gets to do, then that's just crummy writing. I have to disagree that negotiation is somehow always cowardly, and that physical response is the only brave option. I would say that it takes just as much chutzpa to reason with a bully while standing your ground, and some of the bravest individuals we know were those who defiantly and with dignity refused to fight back. And I'd also say that it takes some amount of courage to remember that "cool" and the opinion of others is often highly over-rated. =) But then "common sense" becomes whatever the author decides it is, and gets conveniently labelled as that after the fact. If Xavier's persistent kindness and insight somehow got to Sabertooth, and he began to see the error of his ways despite his past, and then they became one big happy mutant family, then Xavier's "soft approach" would have been "common sense". I know, it would have been a lame story to an audience wanting tension and action, but this sort of stuff happens in real life-- so if we define "common sense" as whatever philosophy works in the end and that a vague "we" can agree with, it doesn't only mean kicking arse and taking names. Anyway, I think I'm finding the comic Wolverine that someone described a lot more interesting a character. He sometimes does things that he himself regrets and feels guilt for, in order to shield his teammates from it. He doesn't always come out smelling like roses, doesn't always have perfect vision, doesn't always end up doing the exact right thing, and can't always excuse his methods with a smug and cynical "I know better", but his mistakes are still made for the right reasons.

Add me to the crowd that can't stand the way most of the newer comics are colored. Yes, the old pulp paper felt cheap, but I miss it. Probably a nostalgia thing and I could really take it or leave it. But the old comics used color in a way that just felt more gritty and more expressive, even when limited to a few tones. New CG coloring tends to be highly formulaic, and everyone and everything looks like it's made of brushed chrome. For me, it really messes with the mood and believability of the books, when everything is blinding and glitzy. I mean modern coloring is essentially: 1. Paint by numbers. 2. Gaussian Blur it!! 3. Profit! Give me flat tones or watercolors anyday. It says something when a Miller written Batman ceases to be dark and gritty, because the art and coloring kill whatever mood the writing would have had. Then again, it could also be because Miller's writing is subpar in All-Star, and that Miller and Lee is just not a great pairing. And I think it also says something when I loved the 90's Lee, but his new stuff is almost so sacharinely sweet that it's intolerable. I'm not sure who to blame, him for losing a step, or his colorist.

Anti-heroes are popular because partly because of a distrust of authority that our culture has developed since the 60's. They're also popular because watching someone kick arse and cut through the "BS" is refreshing. And they also appeal because they have the grit and flaws we have as real people, when some traditional heroes are so perfect as to be uncompelling and unrelatable. I agree that characters that only follow rules are boring to watch. But it's not mindless to have real convictions and ideals that one's thought through and remains faithful to. Xavier of the comics is not mindless, and it sounds to me like Xavier of X3 is just badly written. People aren't perfect, despite their teachings, and leaders are the most scrutinized. But I'd rather someone have teachings and principles than to do with them altogether, just because they fail them on occasion. Does Cyclops or Xavier regret their hypocracy? Or do they just ignore it altogether? If it's the former, I see them as real men trying to live under a standard that they sometimes fail but are determined to live up to. And I think there can be plenty of honesty in that. But if it's the latter, then that's just hypocracy or maybe poor writing.

Where did I ever say that? I'm not sure where I even came close to suggesting Wolverine was always wrong in my last few posts, and I'm not sure where this idea that I'm attacking Wolverine comes from (aside from some silly jabs earlier on). Often he's perceptive. But sometimes his instincts and feral nature leads him to take courses of action that might not be the best (IMO). Highlighting the potential bad sides of a character concept in response to unqualified praise of its pros does not necessarily mean bias. I was simply countering the assertion that Wolverine's loner nature and baser senses somehow makes him unable to be wrong, and that everyone else is thus necessarily an idiot. And for what it's worth, anti-hero does not mean "not hero". It just means a character who doesn't carry a squeaky-clean image and might engage in questionable behavior. Anti-heroes can be heroes. Just as heroes can be heroes. And my point has always been that both can be heroes, even according to your own definition of what makes one a hero. Then we're talking about two different things. Many of us are talking about the characters presented as a whole in the comics, and not one particular episode in the animated series, and we're looking at their histories, and not boxing the characters in entirely upon evidence from one animated episode that we (or I) haven't seen. Where am I seeing it in black and white? I've already noted Wolverine's perceptiveness in certain moments but I'm not willing to buy that his instincts can never be wrong and that he can't have blind spots. You're using an episode of the cartoon as your case study and as evidence that Wolverine can do no (real) wrong, but I think it's important to look at their entire histories in whole. Just because I don't buy that Wolverine is flawless doesn't mean that I believe him a raging, cruel lunatic 100% of the time. Again, false dichotomy. Sometimes, he can be a bit of one, and he can be wrong, even if he's right in other moments. Same goes with Xavier and Cyclops. Hence why the X-men make for a good team in the comics. They compliment each others' weaknesses, and they bring their own strengths. But if one's idea is that the X-men are, for the most part, a bunch of idiots and Logan has to constantly set them straight, then I think one misses what the X-men are actually about. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's starting to sound like this is how the team's presented. And if that's the case, that's just crappy writing. Xavier was wrong, in that particular instance, in an animated episode that I've never seen. Happy? But him being wrong in that instance doesn't brand him uber-softy-idiot for life, nor does it invalidate his preferred approach, and Wolverine being right doesn't make him smell like roses eternally, nor does it discount the times he'd been mistaken himself in comic history. Xavier needs a Wolvie, and Wolvie needs an Xavier. No, what I hoped was that you'd acknowledge an anti-hero's cynical perspective isn't the only one that's right, and that as much as you enjoy the archtype, you might be able to see that the things you value (initiative, thoughtfulness, perception) has been exemplified by traditional heroes as well. Here you seem to admit that the anti-hero isn't perfect, but then imply that his imperfection is actually the perfect thing in an imperfect world. Yet we have no real-life anti-hero role-models in this world, because they only function well in fiction where the setup is fabricated and the outcome is predetermined. I'm not trying to rank the characters on a ladder. I'm trying to show the validity of each of their concepts and the validity of their differing and sometimes warring perspectives. I love it when Batman and Superman knock heads, where both sides are presented fairly, and so much truth is seen from both sets of eyes. And I hate it when Miller writes Superman like a big dumb errand-boy for Batman just because he doesn't know how to express Superman's nobility in a compelling way. I guess you might in this instance say "Batman's awesome, and Superman's an idiot." I guess I'd say "In Kingdom Come Waid's treatment of Superman is awesome, and in All-Star Batman & Robin, Miller's treatment of Superman's kind of idiotic." If using counterexamples to shed light on both sides of each archtype makes me baised, okay, then guilty as charged. So there's no confusion, do I like Wolverine? Yes. Do I enjoy anti-heroes? Heck yes. But I like Beast and I like Superman when they're well written as well, and I don't believe the anti-authorian cynicism of the former, as valid as it is sometimes, is the only accurate way to see things. And I don't think it makes me biased to say so.

Of course. But you don't have to be a Guile, Punisher, or Wolverine to do it. You yourself mentioned Cyclops doing that in moments. I think jerk=sensible/team player=idiot is a false dichotomy. Err, super hero comics are fraught with internal conflict, or at least they've been for the last 20 years. X-men isn't the only title to feature conflicted stars-- I think more do than dont-- and some titles that feature a very classic Superman have issues of conflict and tension for him to resolve. I actually agree with your opinion on the anti-hero archtype. He sees many things as they are, because he's been through them on the ground level. And sometimes, he can do things that others can't, because he's not shackled with certain sensibilities. But I also think those characters have blindspots and their instincts aren't always right, nor is their perception of the world (or at least one we live in) always accurate. And sometimes, their disregard for convention can be used selfishly or impulsively. However you seem deny all other types of heroes the ability to be thinking or perceptive (which I think is inaccurate, and in cases where you're right, it's due mostly to bad writing, not to a bad character concept). And I also don't agree what you seem to imply: that a thinking reader must love unconventional, jerk, loners over all other types of heroes. I would think that a thinking reader would see the truths in viewpoints held by all character types, and might especially enjoy an otherwise "boring" character like Beast. I love these characters myself. But to paint all other characters as stupid, unthinking, mindless followers of rules is to misunderstand them in order to prop up the faults of the anti-hero/rogue/jerk architype. Superman is again, as big a boyscout as they come. In Kingdom Come, he becomes detached from the humanity that he was once sworn to serve, and begins to lay down the law on villains as he sees fit. In some ways, here he becomes the by-the-book hero, but one without heart or understanding. His attempts fail. Then villains and heroes rumble in Kansas, and due to the danger of the power that could be released in this battle, the UN decides to nuke all the heros and metahumans once and for all. In anger, Superman decides to bring down the roof of the UN upon its members-- and here Superman becomes a bit of the anti-hero, or maybe simply unheroic. Who brings him back from the brink? An ordinary man-- a pastor no less. And Superman again discovers what he's about-- his responsibility is to work alongside mankind, and not to do his work for him. Through this journey, Superman questions his beliefs, questions authority, and man in general, and discovers that the giant boyscout he used to be was who he needed to be. He finds that he can serve men only by identifying with them. The moment he abandons Clark Kent is the moment he fails. What I'm trying to say is that what makes heroes interesting, heroic, and in some part real-- being able to question, being able to perceive, and being able to take initiative, is not something limited to the loner/gruff/detached stereotype. Just because Superman prefers law and order and Wolverine leans towards emotion and impulse does not mean that one or the other is automatically more or less thinking. And frankly, both types of personalities can have their own blind spots. I love Law and Order: SVU. Detectives Stabler and Benson face the usual shackles law enforcement officers do, and while they've both seen it all and know that the system is far from perfect, they attempt to serve justice within the system as best they can. Occasionally, they may take a questionable step outside, and when they do, they face consequences for doing so. But by and large, they're police officers respectful of the law and even more respectful for the law's spirit and intent. To me, they're "heroes", because they have to use all their savvy to do the right thing, even when the powers that enable them to do that end up working against them. And more than once, I've thought about law-enforcement as a career, but I've never been compelled to tape steak knives to my wrist, get a bad haricut, and go on a rampage for great justice. One thing I know I would not want is real life vigilantes fighting for "justice" according to their own moral code. Comics have the luxury of scripting the setups and outcomes so that vigilantes are proved right more than not, but in real life, vigilante justice is extremely problematic on its own, and frankly, most people who attempt such a thing do so when the common sense they believe they have fails them. Another Law and Order example: A child is abducted, and "common sense" tells a child safety activist that it's obviously the work of a registered sex offender that lives nearby. Frustrated by what he perceives as the inadequacy of law enforcement, he poses as a detective and convinces another child to be the perfect witness against the offender to the real detectives. Of course he's wrong, and ends up obstructing justice, and the wrong man is accused. Vigilante justice, at least in America, simply does not work on any appreciable scale, because common sense is simply what we label our own beliefs and outlook when we assume that others agree with it. But because everyone has a different outlook, following what one thinks is "common sense" blindly is a sure way for many folks to be wrong. Wait, so it's okay to endanger people with your anger, but it's not okay to endanger people for a cause? =) For what it's worth, I do believe some causes are worth dying for, but the choice to sacrifice has to be made by each person themselves. I have to admit that I haven't seen X3 yet, so I'm arguing primarily from what I know of the comics. As mentioned by someone else, Xavier shys away from intrusive use of his powers except when necessary. But let me play devil's advocate and flip that around... why is Xavier's use of his power "abuse" when Wolverine's instinctual rage isn't? Why can't Xavier use his abilities to control others, seeing that it's necessary "by experience" but Wolverine can throw principles out the window at his own convenience? Is it because Xavier talks in a snooty accent and doesn't chomp on cigars? Is it because he's not "cool" enough to break rules and principles? Or is it because he's the leader and must set an example, the very thing that frustrates some in the first place? But it's a bit unfair to ask someone to be a leader, call him a dirty hypocrite when he makes an occasional mistake, call him unbending and unflexible even when he doesn't, all while on the sidelines naysaying one decision after another because the shackles of responsibilities aren't on him. I understand that the comic Wolverine doesn't do that though.

You don't have to be a loner, jerk, or anti-hero that bucks and distrusts all authority as a rule to see evil for what it is. You simply need to be perceptive. Boyscouts and goody-two-shoes can also be perceptive, and not everyone who agrees and complies with certain authorities is automatically a mindless robot who hasn't thought through the issues. The irony is, I find some classic heroes more heroic in the diluge of anti-heroes we see today, because the ideals they stand for are still virtues today, and because they don't have to chomp on cigars and spit expletives to do their jobs, as cool as it is to do that kind of thing. A "soft", or rather, more subtle approach doesn't necessarily mean one devoid of common sense. And I'm sure there's more than one instance where Wolverine's stab first, ask questions later approach ended up being the incorrect one. You make it sound like Wolvie can do no wrong, which, ironically is what the classical heroes were accused of when the anti-hero became popular. You're also equating anti-hero and "loner" with common sense and flawless perception, when the two are completely different things. The anti-hero tends to distrust all authority, sometimes to his and others' detriment. The perpetual cynicism many anti-heroes are stricken with is a very one-sided way of looking at things that also fails to account for reality. Again, in the real world, no one gets very far bucking all authority, and no one gets very far without cooperating and relying on others... the real heroes in my opinion know which authorities to buck and which to comply with. But respecting well-intentioned authority and at least attempting to work with it is in my opinion, a noble cause, especially when many of these rules and limits are there to protect others in the first place. A "hero" who blatantly ignores authority and complies with it only when it's convenient, is in my opinion, a bit of a lazy-man's hero. =P He doesn't deal with any of the realities we have to deal with, so we end up sitting back and letting him do all our work for us. I just think that heros, both real and fictional, should ultimately inspire action, rather than be figures that fulfill our wishes, because their fictional hands aren't tied by real life. I'm not sure how that makes sense. A hero isn't a hero unless he stands above heros? Tough, rough and tumble characters are fun... but again, I think that's an extremely narrow definition of "hero". And I do happen to like thinking heroes (even brainy ones), because "common sense" is often wrong, especially when everyone thinks they've got it. I agree that one can't be an unthinking slave to rules, but rules are also there for a reason. The balanced hero considers both truths. And there's also an anti-anti-hero emerging: the hero who does it "by the book" even though he's constantly being told by "common sense" and society that it's already a lost cause to try that sort of thing. It's the hero who stands above base emotions and understands the spirit and heart behind the rules, even when the rules themselves fail. I guess in the end, we both agree that what makes a hero is personal intiative, rising above the crowd, and self-sacrifice. I just don't think that you have to be a jerk, loose cannon, or be prejudiced against all forms of authority to be one. But yes, the latter's more marketable nowadays, at least until we get tired of it. And see, here I would be thinking beast incredibly cool, because what makes him cool here is that he's not another action puppet, but a character of reasoned mind and integrity despite the beastly nature of his physical powers. And I do find integrity and character very cool. Especially when one refuses to do the "cool" thing. And especially in my comics.

It occurs to me now that Low Vis might be referring to the Wolverine of the movies and cartoons, who's probably sort of watered down and who's more right than not in his judicious rage, because a often misguided, violent beaver-man probably wouldn't make a very good hero to the kiddies, at least not while their parents are also watching. So instead, he's angry at all the right times, and the other characters are made more wooden and stupid to give him room to be expressive and emotional.

See, again it seems that your analysis is a bit too one-sided. Of course leaders have flaws. And that's why they occasionally need others to call them out, just as figures like Wolverine work best alongside someone with a bigger picture and who has more imagination than sticking everyone who's a problem through with claws. But to assume that the pessmistic, cynical, loner, anti-hero always has a more accurate grasp of every situation and what constitutes "real life", and that they're the only ones that "think stright" seems a little bit simplistic a view as well. I don't believe either Cyclops or Xavier deny the X-men emotion. They simply value control over them in the performing of one's duties. It's the same case with police officers and military personel, many of which we would consider heroes, and many of whom must also cooly and professionally use violence in the service of others. Even Batman, who would fit your perferred mold of "hero", has come close to losing his status as such when he allows his emotions to win over. In those moments, someone has to pull him back from the brink. And guess who does that? Usually a big boyscout, in the form of Superman or Commissioner Gordon, although Gordon's sort of a big, cynical boyscout, who manages to hold to his ideals even though he's seen and gone through it all. The whole appeal of the anti-hero is that they're fraught with flaws, make mistakes, and that they possess our very real human frailties. Their cynicism from "experience" is their justification for doing sometimes unheroic things. Sure, we're glad to have them around when they're on our side, but it's like we've watched them for so long that we have a hard time recognizing their flaws as flaws. Instead, their cool demeanors lull us into thinking that they can no longer do wrong so long as their actions, however mistaken, can be backed by a dry, quippy one-liner.

I think that's an extremely narrow definition of what makes a "hero", or at least a good one, and Wolverine's whole does-not-play-well-with-others, Clint Eastwood persona is in some ways closer to the anti-hero that's been made popular in the last few decades. I think a hero is better defined as one who's committed to the well being of others, even if it requires his own sacrifice, and in that vein, Cyclops and Xavier are just as much heroes as Wolverine and Spiderman. Sometimes, that sacrifice includes being "cool". Not to mention that the biggest boyscout of them all, Superman, is as much of a hero as any other that comes to mind. Plus it's sort of a one sided look at the members of the X-Men. Without Cyclops' leadership and discipline and Xavier vision, Wolverine would just be a mostly pissed off regenerating furball of claws. And weasel-men don't change the world, at least, not alone. As far as "real life" goes, many of our real life heroes are in fact compassionate idealists, leaders, teammates, and visionaries, committed fully to the mission, and the solitary no-nonsense badasses we think we love are few and far between. The greatest heroes of course know when it's time to be the former and when it's time to be the latter.

Actually, Disney's own anime releases have subs that are more faithful and readable than most fan subs, not to mention dubs that are actually tolerable. If they're going to sue, that means they've bothered to pay for and obtain the license, and that also means you're likely to get something better than most fans can put together in the first place. I don't see that as a bad thing, so long as Disney treats the source material with the respect they've shown so far. And like JB0 mentions, it won't be Disney who decides that fansubbers have served their purpose. It'll be the fansubbers themselves.

That is just wrong on so many levels. I'm half wondering if you don't actually live somewhere in the south where your dad is actually also your bully big brother. Sigh... not to mention the countless times things went missing or slightly broken because they felt the need to clean up my room to impress their guests. I sometimes wonder if they know what that hinged slab of wood called "a door" is for.

You know, I really feel some of your guys' pain. I haven't experienced anything as horrific as some of what you've described, and the women in my life have always been understanding about my stuff... but I've had my dad throw out things here and there that were important to me at the time in the name of "cleaning" and "organizing". It's something that I have a hard time understanding, why some folks just don't have respect for someone else's stuff. Feels like that sort of thing should be common sense. I wonder if it's because some parents didn't have childhoods filled with toys, so they don't quite understand what these chunks of plastic actually mean to their kids. Okay, I did let a friend borrow a bunch of my Star Wars figures, including the ROTJ Luke that was my favorite. At some point he either decided he wasn't giving them back or broke/lost enough of them to make that difficult. All I remember was that I had to get my parents to drive me over in order to exchange back all of the belongings we had of each other, and by then, the friendship had kind of soured so it ended up being a last shot hostage exchange of sorts. Luke never made it though, and I never found a replacement.

Did you come up with that by yourself? I'm seriously laughing my head off here.

Wow, I don't think that topic of discussion crossed any of our minds. Until now.

Routh is still no Reeves. Reeves can do no wrong by me. If I wasn't clear enough, I'd meant to say that the narrowing he does at the end of the second trailer isn't the same as the squinting he does in the shot you posted earlier. *Cues bsu's fanboy attack for still talking about this.*

Routh does much better as Supes when he narrows his eyes a bit... there were a few shots and angles where he really felt and looked the part. And no, steely narrowing ain't the same as squinting. =P

I almost wonder if the reason Kojima likes Raiden so much is because the Raiden that's in his head isn't the one that the American audience got. Japanese Raiden has a deep, booming voice despite his pretty, Bishonen looks, and the difference between the two is the difference between Macross Max and Robotech Max. Except in the case of RT, Max is still pretty slick and doesn't whine. Who, incidentally, was voiced by Cam Clark, the actor that did Liquid Snake.

That could also be it. I must have missed it in the trailer, but I do remember (or misremember) something about clones aging faster in one of the earlier games.

Deathhammer pretty much just said everything else I'd been thinking. As far as hooking the reader goes, you might want to consider changing the prologue to the actual beginning of the story proper, and simply telling it not as a journal entry, but as it's actually happening. An alien pilot on a routine patrol, meeting these self-destructive, crazy Terrans for the first time does make me wonder-- what happens next? If you can flip everything around, and turn the humans that we're so familiar with into subjects of mystery, and show how the behaviors that we're so familiar with can seem totally wacky and dangerous to the logic of an outsider, I think that could make for a pretty intriguing beginning. This has probably been done before in sci-fi, but not often or well enough that I remember a vivid example of it...