Fandom and the Entertainment Industry: Where to Divide the Line Between Fun and Fury

I remember distinctly when I first considered the insidious nature of consumerism. At 13 years old, a teacher had laid out before my eyes the simple notion that a company’s main goal is to sell, sell, sell. I was dumbfounded. I asked myself, how could the creators behind Star Wars, behind Batman, behind Super Mario Bros., only be concerned with making money? Why don’t they focus on making fans happy by providing them with the best product? As I’ve grown older, I’ve accepted that the entertainment industry is just that: an industry. I’ve come to terms with the fact that every single decision gets made based on the likelihood a profit will arise from it; if a product or deeper message comes out of this endeavor, that’s merely a secondary bonus. But as someone who continues to consume this content and finds less consistent quality, I find myself wondering if complaining about quality is even worth the effort.

It’s the responsibility of the consumer to support the quality products put out by the entertainment industry. If you enjoy Marvel’s consistently entertaining, well-made films, you need to support them with the billions they expect to see in order to ensure more films will follow. If you love the superhero TV shows on the CW, you need to tune in every night and let the network know that you’re willing to sit through all the advertisements for the sake of watching the action. These companies that produce this programming can’t do what they do without the support of your time and dollar. That’s all they care about. But they also know that they need to keep people returning in order to ensure consistent profit and revenue. This is what incentivizes the production team to make good content. This is all information any fan should be aware of by now.

This system, unfortunately, is an inherent conflict of interest. Artists tend to choose a life of having the opportunity to hold a mirror up to contemporary society and ask the question, “How can you do better?” They weave stories of horrible characters waging social, political, and economic conflicts that will often mirror what real people have done, or are doing. These stories are the face-value sales pitch, though. The real depth comes from the characters trapped in these conflicts. The characters are often the strength of the story, and the stronger the character, the better the whole idea. So, what does one do when a character acts differently to how they should in real life? While suspension of disbelief needs to be a procured skill when experiencing these stories, how far should the audience member be willing to allow it? When a piece of programming offers eye-dazzling special effects or stunning choreographed fight sequences, it’s easy for the viewer to be whisked away into a world beyond their own. Seeing the characters engage in such a fantasy sells the story as being just as fantastical, thus allowing my personal suspension of disbelief. To keep my interest, you need to keep the rules of your story within the boundaries of which you have set.

When the entertainment begins to break those rules – whether with the suspension of disbelief, with character motivation, with the actual storytelling – the analyst and the cynic inside me rears his ugly head, spilling profanities over freaking stories. Underneath all of the rage stems the reasoning: whatever I’m investing my time in, whatever I’m taking the effort to spend on, I’d like to have a return on that. I’d like the story to be engrossing, the gameplay to be challenging but fair, the characters to be enjoyable to watch. When I don’t get that, I get cranky. I get pouty. I get upset. And why shouldn’t I? Artistically, it’s the responsibility of these creators to keep a story coherent, a character realistic within the rules of the world, and offer the overall product (if possible) the ability to have the audience connect the conflicts within the story to the conflicts the world around them faces.

So, why is it that I don’t have the right to be complaining? Well, for starters, it’s a fantasy: it’s not worth the effort or the attention. These costumed heroes, these human legends, these characters are all no different than the gods of the old world that symbolize life lessons humans carry with them. Perhaps it’s because these characters have had so much more depth and development than those old fables that we treat them so much more seriously. And perhaps it’s because we expect more as an audience that we end up getting disappointed so seriously. After all, Arrow is only a TV show, why get so worked up about it? X-Men: The Last Stand is only a dumb action movie, why do you care if it’s good or not? I’d argue that, if you’re going to make something dumb, you need to at least make character motivations either consistent or believable. X-Men suffers when current-Mystique is always a human, despite what the previous 5 movies of her “proud mutant” stand suggest. Arrow’s Thea can learn to be a competent fighter in one summer, despite Oliver having to train 5 years in severe, stressful environments, to be competent enough to take on mercenaries and militia of all kinds. In my opinion, fans can allow much to slip through the cracks, so long as those cracks aren’t so wide as to contradict what came before.

I don’t like to be analytical when it comes to my films, my TV, and my video games. These forms of entertainment give me joy because they offer ways for me to escape the mundane, everyday life that I live. I have a blast traveling to a post-Apocalyptic world, shooting down radiation monsters. I’m entranced by the tale of an introvert as he begins to experience the woes of true claustrophobia. I’m engrossed by a man’s journey to do good by others with the gifts that he has, despite having suffered great losses. But as one spends so much considerable time in these worlds, the stories they tell and the conflicts that arise begin to overlap one another. And as someone who likes to experience different ways of escape, that sucks. Maybe all I need to do is expand my horizons. Maybe all I need to do is accept the reality and change myself based on it. Maybe what I need to do is adjust my expectations for entertainment. For 18 years, I never had to do that, because quality entertainment was consistent, and I didn’t know that things could be better. But now I do. And I hate it.

Jessica Jones SEASON 1 Review (NO SPOILERS)

Better late than never.

For those of you unfamiliar with the property, Marvel's Jessica Jones is a Netflix-exclusive series featuring heroine Jessica Jones and her fight against the evil mind-controlling Kilgrave. Jessica was born with the gift of superhuman strength; she's stronger than Captain America in many respects. The 13-episode season covers the origins of this damaged woman and her ploy to both keep defeat her rival while making peace with those she loves. Along with her for the journey is her adopted sister Trish, former covert ops agent Simpson, and dangerous lover Luke Cage. Together, these people share their experiences and are intertwined courtesy of Kilgrave.

Not all heroes wear capes

That's the basic synopsis. For those of you familiar to the Netflix formula, and even more so if you saw the excellent Marvel's Daredevil Season 1 on Netflix, you'll be familiar with what to expect on this show: dark themes encapsulated by engrossing characters and a conflict that keeps you on the edge of your seat asking "what comes next?" However, unlike Marvel's Daredevil, where the objective was to portray the physical brutality of Matt Murdock's world, Marvel's Jessica Jones is presenting the unsettling nature of her world through mental brutality. Jessica Jones has dealt with the villainous Kilgrave before, as he made her do things she was unable to say no to. This is the story of a rape victim and her struggle to maintain her sanity after the fact. She turns to booze, she steers clear of others, she disconnects herself from the world at large. The only reason Jessica goes public in this show like she does is because Kilgrave is once again on the prowl, and he's using other innocent people to get to Jessica.

Immediately, this conflict has multiple layers that are intriguing on their own even before you meet the characters. Firstly, how is Jessica, with all of her strength, supposed to overpower someone who can make people do whatever he says? From a superhero perspective, this is a conflict that is immediately intriguing to watch progress throughout the 13 episodes. From a narrative perspective, we meet Jessica Jones as she is recovering from a seriously abusive period in her life, and the commentary on the abuse women have received, and still receive, was both bold but respectful, intense and at the same time intellectual, mature and honest, all at once. It's some of the boldest, most grounded, most human storytelling I've ever seen on a television platform, and I was intrigued by every bit of it. These writers certainly aren't lazy; while dead periods certainly exist in the form of a filler episode, or sub-plots that get in the way of Jessica's story, they weren't so boring that I got immediately turned off from them. This show is ultimately a story about the survivors of abuse, and of not just one kind of abuse. The characters have depth, and their stories are human. I loved the writing of this show.

What do you do when you try to start over?

And as for the characters, there's a plethora to enjoy. Jessica Jones is an unlikable introvert at the start of the show, but as you journey through the episodes, you empathize more and more with her. She's on her own, and you don't judge her for being so as you watch. She's headstrong but calculating, and there's a strong presence that she has to her - Krysten Ritter did a great job with the material. Mike Colter's Luke Cage takes the overly-dark tone of the show and brings in just the slimmest light; inherently, Luke Cage is a good man who tries to do the right thing, an area where other characters of this show actually struggle with consistently. Seeing Cage weed through the darkness and emerge just as endearing is wonderful to see happen. And like Vincent D'Onofrio before him, David Tennant makes for a terrifying villain - but in a different way. Where D'Onofrio terrorized through barely-controlled rage and an uncanny control of the Hell's Kitchen gang scene, Tennant is an unbridled bundle of self-deprivation and excess: using his powers, he abuses anyone who he views gets in his way. But also like D'Onofrio, there's more to the villain Kilgrave than first meets the eye. And what makes it great is that Tennant himself flexes his acting muscles by explaining why  he is the way he is, rather than through flashback. This trio forms a great cast, and the supporting roles were confident and strong as well, particularly in Rachel Taylor's Trish Walker, Jessica's adoptive sister and best friend. She provides a different outlook on the show by being open to others and supportive of Jessica, but being equally strong in her own right. These characters are great, but there are weaker ones in the show (which I won't be getting into right now).

Keep your ears covered when you're around him

When it comes to television, you can't do much better than this. If you're a fan of Marvel's Daredevil and want to venture back into Hell's Kitchen, Marvel's Jessica Jones is definitely for you. Be warned, however: in many ways, this program is some of the most adult content Marvel has ever done. This story is very much a psychological thriller, one that will either engage you to the maximum or make you need to take intense breaks between episodes. The show isn't flawless, and one or two episodes focus less on narrative progression and more on filler, but if you've enjoyed Netflix's programming thus far, you won't be disappointed here.

Rating: 9.0 / 10

Captain America: Civil War Review (NO SPOILERS)

Ultron is defeated. The Avengers have a new lineup. Friends are gone, new friends have been made. What does the world look like after 11 super-powered incidents on Earth? This is the kind of question Captain America: Civil War hopes to give answers to, but it's not the only question that's being asked in this film. And it's because of these character-defining, world-changing questions that I enjoy this movie so thoroughly.

This movie picks up some time after the events of the latest Marvel movie, Ant-Man, where we find the Avengers yet again causing chaos in their attempts to save the world at large. After one particular incident, the United Nations have voted on a superhero control act, known as the Sokovia Accords, which converts the Avengers from being their private hero organization to a collective controlled by the United Nations. Tony Stark, paralyzed by fear and regret due to his actions as Iron Man, leads the collective that believes restrictions at the behest of world leaders is necessary, while Steve Rodgers holds onto the belief that heroes need to retain their rights to save as they feel the need to. What follows in the wake of this disagreement is a serious clash between ideologies, partly mirroring contemporary society, partly being the climax of the first 8 years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I'd first like to discuss the storytelling in this movie: it's some of the best storytelling that Marvel has ever written. This is a logic-tight movie, with character motivations making sense and sequences of events correctly following one another in a realistic manner. For myself, I usually turn my brain off when I'm watching a movie, so plot holes actually aren't an issue for me as long as the overall film is entertaining. I made myself a mandate to examine this film and keep an eye out for any inconsistencies or other logic holes, and I found nothing. Even my mother, who is the more analytical type when it comes to film, didn't see any gaping logic. Props to Marvel on that!

But even more so impressive is the character development we see. With just about 12 superheroes and about five narrative-important  characters featured, not only are the performances great, but each character gets a moment to shine. Did you like Paul Bettany as the Vision, but wish you saw more of him in Avengers: Age of Ultron? Don't worry, he's got plenty to do here! Excited to see Paul Rudd as Ant-Man again after his debut last summer? You should be, because he's just as entertaining now as he was then! Even a character like Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, who often plays second-fiddle to his teammates, had some great interactions and quips in this movie. Another highlight comes from the interplay between Anthony Mackie's Falcon and Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier, who bust heads with one another and provide some surprising levity throughout the film. Don Cheadle's War Machine doesn't have as much of a presence in this movie like he did in Iron Man 3, but he's nonetheless reliable as Tony's partner. Scarlett Johansson has some interesting, character-growing development in this movie, which will for sure push for her solo movie even more after the close of this film. For myself, the remaining five featured heroes stood out to me the most, and they deserve their own paragraphs for that.

Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch was one of my most anticipated characters to see going into Avengers: Age of Ultron; as we now know, she didn't have a great lot to do in that movie, but she was cool nonetheless. Here, she's given more depth and importance. Being arguably the most powerful Avenger, as well as being the youngest, the dynamic of Scarlet Witch, coupled with the characters' view of both herself and her affect on the world, was intriguing to see onscreen. For being such a damaged individual, there's a lot of emotion in her. Additionally, the interplay between her and Vision was cute to see, especially if the filmmakers are hinting at a future with the two characters, a la the comics.

Newcomer Black Panther, being portrayed by Chadwick Boseman, was the most anticipated feature for myself: I love the character, his power-set, his determination, his persona, his presence. In Civil War, we don't really dig too deep into what he is in the comics. We only get a taste of who he is, and what he means to the world. This is fine, as the movie itself isn't primarily focused around one character. I just was hoping to have more is all.

But I got way more than I would've first asked for in the premiere of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Spider-Man. Guys, they nailed it. They freaking nailed it! Casting a younger kid, giving him the right attitude of fun but heroic, and teasing fans with a future as an Avenger all added up to quite possibly the best interpretation of the character. Every time he was on screen, I was smiling and laughing.


But the real standouts in terms of character are Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. Captain America is at the top of his game, being both a leader but a supporter of the Avengers. His ideals this time aren't necessarily American-centric, but more along the lines of western ideology. It makes him more relatable to those who aren't American, and even more to the rest of us living today. He's no longer a simple American soldier, he's a good man that everyone wants to root for. Chris Evans continues to delight as Captain America, and his interactions with Bucky/Winter Soldier shows that while this character is good, there are flaws in him as well. For Robert Downey, Jr. I was floored by his performance in this movie. This is the best, most conflicted Iron Man we've ever seen, and it makes both the stakes and the character all the more exciting to watch. From the turmoil of a divided Avengers team to the conflict with the government to his heartbreak over the loss of his friends, Tony Stark has never been a better character to watch.

The same can be said for the action and special effects. Without the mess of a mindless army at the Avengers' throats, you really get a better sense of each hero's individual abilities. Ant-Man looks great as he's going after Iron Man, the clash between the Winter Soldier and Falcon versus Spider-Man was a joy to watch, and the brawl between Cap and Black Panther was a masterpiece. The airport scene you see in all of the trailers is definitely a stand-out  not only in this movie, but in all 12 movies that the MCU has produced. Special effects mixed with real, authentic shots and fighting sequences are a thrill to watch unfold; that being said, I felt in the first hour that the directors really wanted to use the shaky-cam to the fullest extent. And while we're on the topic of flaws, I originally didn't have much negativity to say about Daniel Bruehl's Zemo, but as I write this review, I don't have much opinion on him compared to everything else that happened in the film. I liked his portrayal in the movie, and the character was interesting enough, but he's definitely not the focus or interest.

With all of that being said, Captain America: Civil War is filled with all of the action and giggles Marvel fans have come to expect, but they've added new complexities to the characters we've come to know and love these past eight years. This movie changes the landscape for Marvel films going forward, something fans have been clammoring for for a while now.  If you're looking for the right way to start off the summer blockbuster season, a movie to make up for the disappointment of past superhero films, or just a great character film. Captain America: Civil War is the movie to see.

Rating: 9.0 / 10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Review (No Spoilers)

Let's get ready to rumble!

This review comes late for a number of reasons. One, during my first viewing of the film, I was ecstatic: as a DC fan through and through, I was ready to love this movie no matter what. That first showing gave me a plethora of DC love, and I ate up every minute of it. I was in a state of ecstasy, a mindset where I was just pleased to finally see the two titans of comics in the same frame on the big screen. After the second showing, one where my emotions were suppressed and my critical side was prominent, I can still say with satisfaction that this movie is enjoyable.

That doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

In terms of character, those notably returning from Man of Steel include Superman, Lois Lane, Martha Kent/Ma Kent, and Perry White; each character is portrayed by Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, and Lawrence Fischburne respectively. While Ma Kent and Perry are reliable characters without being given much to work with, it’s Lois and Clark that get the time to shine. There isn’t much growth from either of them, however. Lois opens the movie discussing with Clark her fears over if he can be her love and Superman at the same time, but that specific dilemma is never again addressed. Lois is simply there to interact with the heroes and villains as a means of explaining the current motivations of the characters, which is a shame considering the film has Amy Adams to work with. The character is wasted, and Adams’ talent fails to shine because of it. 

The hope from Krypton returns to bring the pain.

Superman faces a similar dilemma, but at least he’s used more. With a majority of the plot (and an entertaining montage covering the ethics of Superman) surrounding whether or not Superman has a place in our complex world, there’s little indication that Clark is going through a difficult time. He mopes, going from person to person for a different perspective on how he should act, but he ultimately doesn’t do anything different from what he was doing in the beginning of the movie. And to a further extent, Cavill becomes quite wooden when he suits up. As Clark, he’s great, he’s human, he’s relatable. When he goes super, it’s like he loses that humanity. I don’t know if that was a direction given to him, but I do remember that in Man of Steel, there weren’t as many sequences where not Clark’s, but Superman’s dialogue was delivered in such a stilted fashion. It was so noticeable that it can’t be ignored or shoved under the carpet.

The Dark Knight returns with a vengeance.

But this movie isn’t for our old friends, it’s a showcase for DC newcomers as well! Batman/Bruce Wayne, Alfred the Butler, Wonder Woman/Diana Prince, and Lex Luthor all make their debuts in this movie to begin expanding based on the DC lexicon. The star of this movie really is Batman, portrayed by Ben Affleck, and for the first two-thirds of the film you begin to feel like the movie is more about Batman himself than his rivalry with Superman. Some may be able to forgive the movie of this, especially since we need to re-establish Batman for this interpretation of the world. Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons (who plays Alfred) are a joy to see on-screen together. You can tell they enjoy each other’s company, and they have some good banter to exchange. It makes it all the more disappointing that you don’t see more of their interactions. That’s okay, though, because the Batman sequences are AMAZING. For anyone who’s ever played a Batman videogame, especially a modern one, this will feel very familiar. Batman’s tough, fast, resourceful and merciless with the criminals of Gotham’s underbelly, and his action sequences are a complete joy to watch. They’re much more entertaining than Christian Bale’s stilted fight scenes, I’ll say that much. The other newcomers haven’t been so well-received, but I enjoyed them for what they were. Many were disappointed in Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor, as he’s a more wiry interpretation of the character. This Lex is a scattered genius, somewhat timid, but nonetheless convicted in his goals. His ticks and twitches make him unnerving to watch, and I couldn’t imagine being in the same room with the man. Most people won’t like that Lex isn’t as cool or calculating as previous iterations have been, but I found his erratic nature to be a nice compliment to the stonefaced heroes we see in this movie. 

You WISH you were this badass.

Speaking of heroes, Wonder Woman makes her first big-screen debut in this movie, and she isn’t disappointing. Granted, Gal Gadot, the former model who was cast in the role, doesn’t do anything groundbreaking with the role, but she doesn’t completely botch the job either. There are a couple sequences where Gadot interacts with Affleck, and they’re pretty entertaining scenes. Again, however, when she puts on the warrior garb, she begins to go stale. The personality and the mystique of Diana Prince disappears when she becomes Wonder Woman. Again, it’s nothing major, as she has maybe 4 lines as Wonder Woman, but I have to imagine a much more trained actress could have delivered the lines better.

Imagine if Mark Zuckerberg was Lex Luthor.

Many of the film’s issues lie in the fact that the story is stilted. The script could probably be divided into five different aspects: introducing Batman, having the world conflicted over Superman, having Lex be angry with the government and Superman, having Batman want to fight Superman (and vice versa), and setting up the formation of the super-team, the Justice League. There is no single plotline that dominates, with the script instead seemingly dividing these ideas equally. This results in a sloppy delivery of essentially a prequel to the Justice League rather than a cohesive dialogue between Batman and Superman about the morality of being a superhero, which is the plot that the movie was selling to viewers. The issue with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the issue with Iron Man 2, is the issue with Avengers: Age of Ultron: much of the plot important to the movie at hand is sacrificed to make way for things to come. This isn’t dissimilar to how an actual comic book would tell a story, but a comic book also doesn’t demand two and a half hours of your attention, along with somewhere around $7-15 of your hard-earned cash. By the end of the film, you realize that the movie is more Dawn of Justice and less Batman V Superman.

Many of the shots in the movie look as great as this photo.

But there are many moments that can entertain you, regardless of plot. Director Zack Snyder is a master of cinematography, able to craft and create amazing sequences with past films such as 300, Watchmen, and even the previously-stated Man of Steel. Batman V Superman is no different, with the Batman sequences being exhilarating to watch, Batman and Superman fighting being a nail-biting (and surprisingly aggressive) experience, and Wonder Woman’s technique dazzling when she joins the fray. The special effects are top-notch, and Snyder shoots each sequence as if it were something you would read in your weekly issue of that comic series you love. This movie was made by a comic book fan to express his love of these characters in the way he thought best to: by bringing them directly off the page, and onto the screen. And cynic or not, these scenes dazzle.

At the end of the day, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is an incredibly flawed film, especially considering the stacks it was up against: there was so much potential that could have been reached, so much excitement to live up to, and a standard set and unmatched by its contemporaries over at Marvel Studios. While this movie doesn’t come close to the likes of The Avengers, there is still enjoyment to be had here if you want to find it. Not everyone will be able to, though. And even though I, a self-proclaimed DC fanboy, admit to its faults, that doesn’t mean I still didn’t enjoy what it gave me, or what is to come down the line. I just wish it had given me more, here and now.

Rating: 6.75/10

Why are people hating the new Ghostbusters?

I really don't understand it.

And I should mention before I delve into my thoughts that I am not a Ghostbusters fan. I don't have some childlike, nostalgia-fueled love for the franchise. In fact, I just saw the original film for the first time about two months ago, and I didn't find it to hold up like other older films. That isn't a critique on the special effects, premise, or acting; it just didn't grab me like it apparently grabbed kids 30 years ago.

And maybe that's where the differentiation comes in to play. The original Ghostbusters was never meant to play out and be the franchise it is today. It wasn't meant to span a long-running cartoon series, video games, a sequel film, even LEGO. Back then, the Ghostbusters was just a chance for some old Saturday Night Live cast mates and friends to get together and make a movie with a fun premise. Their energy and camaraderie is what made it so entertaining to watch on the big screen. Kids ate up the mythology and the characters, adults loved the jokes, and the film became a hit. The fact that the franchise has been as inactive these past few years is nothing short of unbelievable. 

Now, director Paul Feig of Bridesmaids fame is back to bring Ghostbusters to a 21st-century audience, complete with a cast of women to represent the modernity of both the acting industry and the world at large. He brings with him women he's worked with before, in the form of the impeccable Kristen Wiig and the surprisingly-talented Melissa McCarthy. Newcomers Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones round out the group, each bringing their comedic sensibilities to the table as well. Kristen, Leslie, and Kate all started SNL fame, so they've got the ability to do comedy well. Melissa McCarthy has recently had films like St. Vincent and Spy to change up her "Melissa McCarthy formula" of acting into something more diverse and enjoyable. The story, while clearly looking like a revisiting of the original, seems to be enticing enough to watch more people bust some ghosts. My personal favorite thing to see was the special effects, which look absolutely amazing. The ghosts look vibrant and lively; pardon the irony. The proton packs and the neutrino wands project dazzling light shows that will most likely culminate in an impressive third act. So I'm left flabbergasted as to why the people are so upset.

The move is definitely looking goofy and lighthearted for something generally considered to be king of the horror-comedies, but I really don't think that this initial look should detract people from enjoying a world that they love so much. As an outsider looking in, I'd recommend to keep your mind open about what's to come. I mean, it can't be worse than Ghostbusters II, can it?

The answer is no. It can't. Just like Star Wars  needed The Force Awakens to be great for its fans, so too does Ghostbusters need to be good. Have faith that director Paul Feig is doing everything in his power to deliver an entertaining entry into the Ghostbusters mythos. And if this doesn't work out, maybe the Ghostbusters franchise needs to be left alone.

DC's Legends of Tomorrow Pilot Review (NO SPOILERS)

After my rant on my displeasure with the projected direction of the CW’s DC shows, you might have been surprised to hear that I’m giving DC’s Legends of Tomorrow the time of day. But there was a lot to be looking forward to when this show was announced: a team-up with your favorite secondary and tertiary characters from both Arrow and The Flash with the backdrop of saving the world by traveling through time sounds like complete and utter pandemonium, but in the most fun of ways. So, after seeing the pilot and getting a sense of what the following 11 episodes have to offer, I believe it’s safe to say that this show will be just fine.

East Londoner and Time Master Rip Hunter

For novices out there, the show revolves around Time Master Rip Hunter’s quest to stop the immortal tyrant Vandal Savage from taking over the world by the year 2116. To do so, Rip travels to 2016 to recruit some heroes and villains he knows will become legends in history: the dashing Ray Palmer/The Atom, the dynamic duo of Professor Stein and Jax Jefferson/Firestorm, the reincarnated assassin Sara Lance/White Canary, the lovers from ancient history Carter Hall/Hawkman and Kendra Saunders/Hawkgirl, and the super-criminals Leonard Snart/Captain Cold and Mick Rory/Heatwave. They will follow Rip throughout all of time to try and end Savage’s reign of terror before it ever begins, while at the same time learning how to work as a team. It’s nothing foreign if you’ve paid attention to the comic books genre, but it is genuine fun to see these fan favorites get a little more screen time.

And that’s probably where the show starts off the strongest. White Canary, The Atom, the Firestom, Cold and Heatwave have all been here for a good year now and stuck out as fan favorites. To see these actors flex their muscles in an environment that focuses solely on them is a genuine pleasure to see, and it makes for some amusing moments. Who would have originally thought that seeing Professor Stein and Ray Palmer trade their quips by means of one-ups would actually bring a chuckle for me? One of the best parts of the pilot still remains the scene where our resident gray-area protagonists Canary, Cold, and Heatwave stop for a drink in 1975 and cause a commotion. The actors show that they’re having genuine fun on the show, and they dig deep into their characters. It’s not as nearly as dramatic a soap opera as Arrow still strives to be, but it’s also more ridiculous than The Flash.

Lovers from an ancient time, Hawkgirl and Hawkman

As for newcomers like the Hawks, Savage, and Rip, there’s some work to be done. They’re all interesting enough on a base level, but I have particular issues with each. My favorite one out of the bunch is Rip, and he’s certainly the most promising. He’s essentially the leader of the show, even though almost everyone gets equal screen time, but what Arthur Davill is doing with Rip is promising. He’s got a wide range, which I think will play well as we see what else is in store for the Time Master. The Hawks, on the other hand, seem to be stuck in a rut. Kendra continues to express disbelief of her role, hindering her character progression; and Carter isn’t exactly moving it along as well as he should. Not that the actors are necessarily bad, but they’re very limited in terms of what they have to work with. One of the biggest mistakes the show has already made, in my opinion, is the casting for Vandal Savage. The actor himself definitely looks the role (although I prefer to see Vandal Savage on the same physical level as Superman, just as a staple). My issue with him is he doesn’t exactly have the voice of what I would expect a live-action Vandal Savage to be. It’s foreign-sounding, with a very heavy accent, and it’s just an octave higher than I prefer to hear. I had this same issue with Ra’s al-Ghul last year, where the actor just didn’t sound the part. While the way an actor sounds isn’t a large enough reason to not cast him or her, Savage’s delivery has also been awkwardly handled thus far. I just don’t find him naturally acting when I see him on screen, especially when compared to the actors who have portrayed Deathstroke and Damien Darhk. Because of his wooden delivery and peculiar sound, I don’t find the villain intimidating, no matter how much the pilot tried to convince me he was.

The immortal conqueror Vandal Savage

But this show isn’t just about acting and the characters. This show has some of the best special effects I’ve ever seen on television outside of HBO. It just goes to show where networks are putting their budget, and they’re really giving their audience a spectacle. The time-travelling spaceship reminds one of the Millennium Falcon, and seeing it travel through the fabric of time and space is a marvel. The colors are vibrant and ecstatic. The battles here are bigger and better than they ever have been on the CW, and the choreography for each character’s distinctive fighting methods is fascinating to watch. Canary kicks ass when she’s literally kicking ass, Firestorm’s flaming flight is fantastic, and Rip Hunter’s futuristic pistol is especially cool to see in action. These set pieces for combat or special effects showcases are some of the best I’ve seen on TV.

All in all, the story is simplistic enough for people to jump on the train without thinking. There are references to the other shows here and there, but DC’s Legends of Tomorrow benefits from their time travel that they don’t have to rely on the events taking place on Arrow and The Flash, letting loose the shackles that the other two have been crutched to for quite some time. The acting is good enough to grab your attention, and it never hurts to see fan favorites get a little more time in the spotlight. Newcomer Rip Hunter is a fun change of pace from the usual cast of characters, but more will need to be done with the Hawks and Vandal Savage to convince me they’re worth investing more interest in. The special effects are almost in it of themselves a further main character, as it’s some of the best you can see on television. If you’re a fan of DC comics or the CW shows, you’re probably going to enjoy this one. From what the pilot has shown us, this story is going to be very focused, which is good since 13 episodes doesn’t leave you much room to deviate. Let’s just pray that this doesn’t go off the rails anytime soon.

Pilot Rating: 7.5/10

My Current Problem with The CW's Superheroes

I love superheroes. I love them. They’re fantastical, they’re engrossing, they’re inspirational. They present to me an example of how to be the best person I can be – to be able to overcome fear, to stand up for others as well as yourself, to be a man who can do good by others. And so, I love the fact that we live in an age of superheroes. We have movies, video games, books, even LEGO based on the tight-wearing, muscle-covered super-beings that at one time only used to inhabit colorful, twenty-page chapters one had to find every month at their local drugstore. The comics laid down foundations for all themes to be depicted in both mature and humanizing ways; from the issues of addiction to equality, comics have done it all. It then frustrates me to see high-profile television shows facing the difficulties that comics have already conquered.

Now bear with me, I understand that comparing comics to television isn’t exactly fair, but keep in mind that they function the same way. Both mediums have a certain budget in which to tell a story, and face similar deadlines. Whether it be 30 issues or 22 episodes, comics and television shows often have to fight the same storyline obstacles of both progressing a central narrative while at the same time giving the audience something captivating to enjoy. Now, I’m not saying that all superhero television lacks the enjoyment necessary to hold my attention – Daredevil and Jessica Jones are perfect examples of how this can be done right – no, I’m talking about DC’s current run of shows, specifically those that air on the CW Network.

The CW is known for its dramatic flair; most of its shows happen to be variations of a soap opera in one way or another. And when this all started, it seemed ludicrous to attempt a superhero show in that vein. All of that changed when we saw how fantastic Arrow was in its freshmen year. Action-packed, gleefully dramatic, and with a pinch of the right amount of humor, it seemed like all superhero shows should work their way into this format. And after the success that the series saw, it seemed as though the executives thought the same way. Taking the time in season 2 to carefully and thoughtfully expand their world, we were introduced to a likeable Barry Allen, who would go on to be The Flash the following year. Taking an alternate but similar approach, The Flash decided to lead with a tone that suited the character better. It was lighter on the themes, but still blissfully complex when presenting the relationships of characters juxtaposed to the scenario of the episode. The Flash was fun, delightfully so, and it was even more fun when it got to the point where we could see these two casts interact with one another. To see the gritty Star City vigilantes bump heads with the light-hearted crew from Central City was a fun romp, and it put into perspective how both shows could stand on their own but still be so consistent in quality. And at the same time, this is when things went off the rails.

While both shows keep to the relationships that have been established with the central characters, never slacking off so much as to make them seem like caricatures rather than actual people, I felt an immediate change in priorities that lay underneath the surface. Almost immediately after the introduction of Barry Allen, the showrunners began to launch a campaign to find any B-list or C-list DC character not slated for a film in the next seven years and throw them to the screen. We saw the emergence of The Atom, Black Canary, Katana, Wildcat, Firestorm, and even Constantine. These characters are all very cool, and some of them have even grown to be enjoyable to watch (I personally enjoy Firestorm the best), but there became a very real feeling within the shows to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. There became this idea that the superhero made the show, rather than the show making the superhero.

I can wholeheartedly disagree with that. For the beginning of both season 4 of Arrow and season 2 of The Flash, viewers were treated to what the showrunners called “table setting.” They described it as using the early episodes of these shows to launch their recently-started DC’s Legends of Tomorrow. Before the winter television break, we had to deal with seven episodes that helped jump-start the new series. Seven episodes where dedicated fans had to trudge through characters and plots separate from the overall story. Seven episodes where the show’s own characters had to make room for sub-plots. That irks me in ways you can’t imagine. When I sit down to watch a show, it shouldn’t be expected of me to begin investing my care and attention on characters I may or may not watch at other times anyways. Especially at season 4, I’m returning to a show for one reason, and one reason only: give me an epic struggle for my hero. Don’t make him or her have to take time away from their own issues to deal with someone else’s. If the crossover occurs naturally, I’ll allow it. For example, last year’s crossover had Team Arrow going to Central City to track down Captain Boomerang, and Team Flash went to Starling to continue the search. A central goal to bring these two heroes together is good fun. 

This year, they did the same thing, but it was still table setting means: Vandal Savage was hunting down Cisco’s girlfriend Kendra, and Team Flash went to Team Arrow for help. Maybe it’s just me, but there was never any hint a threat like Savage was looming. At least with Boomerang, we knew that he’d been on the run from A.R.G.U.S.’s Suicide Squad for quite some time, and causing havoc in the process. When a show expects me to suspend all of my disbelief, it rubs me the wrong way, especially when their plan is to just get me to sit through more of their content.

Does ANYBODY know what to do with Thea?

Do you sleep in that suit?

Furthermore, I’m starting to question the ability of the writers, specifically when it comes to them writing women. It seems to me that they can’t really have me emotionally invest in women characters unless they’re disobeying an order or facing some sort of inner demon (at least, that’s what I think the writers think). Think about it: Laurel, a.k.a. Black Canary, has always had some stupid drama to deal with, whether it was the love triangle with Oliver and Tommy, the overdosing on the drugs, or the disregard for personal well-being when it came to becoming the Black Canary. Thea, a.k.a. Speedy, dealt with drugs too, neglectful parents, and then having the realization that her birthfather is actually a psychopath with a pension for domination. Iris West has her boy troubles, and that’s just about all they give her in terms of a story at this point. Caitlin is the same way. Even Sara on Legends suddenly finds herself afflicted with side-effects from the Lazarus pit which, on Arrow, they just said was no issue. 

With Wally as the catalyst, can Iris be more than a love interest?

Now, in the writer’s defense, many issues have been resolved. Iris now has a lot more purpose since she has a further drive to connect with her long-lost brother Wally, and Laurel is far more competent on the team than off it. But there is still work to be done. You say Laurel is an assistant District Attorney, so where are her cases? She can’t be a sidekick full-time, can she? In previous episodes, we’ve seen Iris do some reporting, but it’s always been very light. What about Thea? What’s she doing nowadays, besides making out with Oliver’s campaign manager? These female characters are beginning to slip into familiarity in terms of confliction, and it’s making them boring to watch. Even with the new conflicts to present them with, we as viewers don’t care. Fans still call for Laurel’s removal from the show. Now, I don’t have the answer on how to fix them. But it’s my personal opinion that the ideas of these shows is to center them around the superheroes because that’s what they believe the people want to see. That mindset needs to change. Give people more with these characters you insist on keeping around, because at the moment all they serve to do is take up time, story, and the budget to keep them on.

And I want to be clear: I still enjoy their shows. They’re fun, they’re stupid, they’re time killers. My biggest issue is that they used to really set the bar for what superheroes on TV should be. It’s not about introducing any spandex-wearing superbeing you can find. It’s about the drama, the intrigue. To their credit, the back half of the season is seeing a turnaround in attitude and story. And I understand that this was probably the plan to being with. But I hate it when my time as a viewer gets eaten up because we have to focus on five spin-offs or two cross-overs. I want to see Flash fight Zoom, I want to see Green Arrow get back at Damien Darhk. If the showrunners can give me entertainment that uses story, setting, and characters to their fullest potential without drifting too far off the beaten path, I’ll be a happy camper. And I’ll keep you posted on how that goes.