Beta's Super Awesome Unofficial 83rd Academy Awards Pre-Blog

"At last I'll have the respect of my self-important peers"

This week the nominations of the 83^rd Academy Awards came out.  Since I went to great lengths to watch as many movies with Oscar buzz as possible I figured I may as well write about the show as well.  There’s a lot of stuff to talk about but let me start out by admitting that I haven’t seen the vast majority of the films nominated (Mainly because I don’t go out of my way to watch documentaries but also there’s more than a few films I never even heard of until this week).  Of the ten films up for Best Picture I believe I’ve only seen six of them.  So I won’t be making any real predictions since there’s a lot of unknown factors from my point of view.  Also, as I’ve tried to imply throughout this blog, I’m really just a normal, everyday guy.  I’m not a film student or a movie expert.  Honestly I don’t know what’s supposed to go into making a good film, I just know what I like and don’t like.  So things like cinematography, editing and art direction are totally over my head.  I’ll stick to talking about the “major” awards, I suppose.

Anyway before we get into the awards themselves here are some random thoughts about this year’s show:

-As I predicted there will be no award for Anne Hathaway this year; I guess Love and Other Drugs was more “Romantic Comedy” than “Art” after all.  It’s just as well though, because now she can host the show without the baggage of also being up for an award hanging over her head.  She’s pretty charismatic and likable so I expect she’ll do a fine job as host

-Aaaaand James Franco is nominated for Best Actor.  D’oh!   As the other host he’ll totally have the baggage of being up for an award hanging over his head.  Maybe I’m a dick but I think it’s weird to be hosting the show when you yourself are among those being honored.  In general the whole notion of this award show seems self-gratifying but even more so with this debacle.

-Let Me In and Waiting for Superman didn’t get nominated at all and The Town only got a Best Supporting Actor nomination.  How the hell did that happen?  I heard nothing but amazing things about all three of those movies, especially The Town, all damn year.  Now I’m not sure if this is warranted or not, since I haven’t seen any of them, but Waiting for Superman is literally the only documentary I’ve ever even heard of from 2010 and yet it didn’t make the list.  Weird man, weird.

Best Adapted Screenplay

-I’m a little surprised to see Toy Sotry 3 on this list.  I guess Hollywood has a looser definition of “Adaptations” than I do

-Aside from 127 Hours and Winter’s Bone I’ve seen all these films.  I think as far as screenplays go I prefer The Social Network, but True Grit is an extremely close second

Best Screenplay

-Um, yeah.  I’ve only seen The Fighter and Inception.  Also I’m not sure which script I like better.  Probably The Fighter.  Yeah, let’s go with that.

-Also what the hell is “Another Year”?  I literally never heard of this movie until the nominations were announced this past Tuesday.  Am…am I too pedestrian for it?

Best Animated Feature

-Okay, first of all this entire category is a goddamn joke.  We all know that it was made to keep animated films out of the “gown-up” category.  As you likely are aware I consider animation to be just as valid as live action so I tend to get a little bummed out by this part of the Oscars.  That said what’s the point of having it at all when Toy Story 3 is also nominated for Best Picture?  Doesn’t that, you know, sort of invalidate the whole thing when one of the nominees is also considered one of the best movies of the year and the others are not?

-Both Tangled and Despicable Me were not nominated.  Okay now I’m starting to get pissed off.  Ignoring that both of those flicks were nominated for Golden Globes why in God’s name did the Academy deicide to leave them out of the category when there are only three movies listed?  That’s the lowest nomination count of any category with the exception of Best Make-Up.  I don’t know about Tangled but Despicable Me was certainly a good enough film to stand next to Toy Story 3 (Though I wouldn’t ever bet on it to win).  I genuinely feel insulted.

Best Supporting Actress

-Oh hell no!  They did, they really did.  I prayed they wouldn’t but they did.  They nominated Hailee Steinfeld for Best Supporting Actress despite the fact that SHE’S THE F**KING LEAD CHARACTER IN TRUE GRIT!!!  As I said in my review of the film her character is clearly the protagonist and it is clearly her story that we’re following.  What the hell is the requirement for being nominated for Best Actress?  Seriously!  Apparently I don’t know so someone please explain it to me!   What about Steinfeld’s role in that flick made her a supporting character?   The only reason I can think of for all this nonsense, and this is really cynical, is that the Best Actress category was so loaded that they couldn’t fit her in so instead they shoehorned her into this one so she would still be rewarded for a job well done.  If that’s the case then that means that the Oscars are not only self-gratifying but they’re also politically motivated.  Screw Hollywood.

-Anyway ignoring Steinfeld’s shameful placement on this list Melissa Leo would have been my pick to win except that I haven’t seen two of the movies listed.  And the movie I haven’t seen always seems to win awards like this.  Amy Adams probably won’t win but if she does good for her.  She did a fine job in The Fighter

Best Supporting Actor

-Well…I sure as shit didn’t see any of the movies in this category other than The Fighter.  Huh.  Anyway Christian Bale was super fantastic in this movie, better than anyone else in any other film I saw this year, so I’ll be pretty bummed out if he doesn’t win

Apparently he and I are done professionally

Best Actress

-Well well well, I’m noticing a distinct lack of Hailee Steinfeld in this category.  Regardless like the last section I’ve only seen one of the movies listed, Black Swan, so I’m no judge of what’s what here.  So…go Natalie Portman, I guess

-I didn’t see Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine but I did recently see Michelle Williams in Incendiary.  That’s just as good, right?  Anyway does her appearance here make her the most successful actor to escape from Dawson’s Creek?

Best Actor

-Nothing really to say here other than I hope Jessie Eisenberg wins because, unless he finds a way to gain and/or showcase a greater range of acting abilities I doubt he’ll be getting another shot here.  I earnestly hope he proves me wrong.  Plus if he wins we get to watch him freak out from the attention.  Best acceptance speech…EVER

-Oh yeah, I’m actually surprised that James Franco has earned a nomination.  Not that I have any problem with him it just that the first time I ever saw him was in Spider-Man he was awful in that flick (Though to be fair he was pretty awesome in Spider-Man 3).  Assuming 127 Hours is as good as I’ve heard he may have come a long way

I heard he's some sort of cognitive genius/mutant
F'N Metal

Best Director

-Apparently there’s a list of directors who have been snubbed in this category as long as my arm.  I’m not really sure what goes in to getting nominated for this award.   I assumed, probably wrongly, that if the movie you directed was good enough to get nominated for best picture than you yourself would automatically be one of the bets directors of the year.  Meh

-I guess if I had to choose I’d pick Black Swan due to how surreal it was.  As it’s not up to me I have no idea who will actually win

Best Picture

-Have I mentioned how pretentious this whole show feels?  Not just this year but every year?  Maybe I’m just bitter because the majority of actors I’ve known have treated me like dirt.  Anyway…

-For the second year in a row ten movies have been nominated for Best Picture.  That feels bloated to me, plus I’m feel like Toy Story 3 probably wouldn’t have made it to the list without it.  Hey, I liked it alight but I don’t think it was nearly s good as most of the other movies here

-Unlike damn near every other category I have seen the majority of the films here, but I suspect that one of the few I didn’t, The King’s Speech, may be the one that ends up winning.  Now it’s not because I assume it was fantastic (I haven’t seen it, I don’t know) but it seems that there’s an enormous amount of buzz surrounding it plus it has the most nominations of any film

-If you read my Top Ten of 2010 list you’ll note that Inception was my favorite movie of the ones listed here.  But c’mon; no way that’ll win.  It’s not “artsy” enough.    I’m pulling for True Grit but I’m not sure the stars are in my favor.  Fingers crossed though

Oh.  Oh yeah, Winter's Bone.  Great film, man
(Yeah, Beta's never even heard of this flick)

The 83^rd Academy Awards is currently scheduled to air February 27th 2011 on ABC.  I plan on watching and taking notes and uploading them soon after.  The Oscars are usually either really fun or really goddamn boring depending on the host and how long they spend stroking each others' egos (They’re stroking something, anyway).   If you have any predictions or thoughts feel free to leave a comment.

Anime Review: Soul Eater

 Another anime?  [Groan] Okay, let’s do this.  Soul Eater is based on the manga of the same name by Atsushi Okubo.  Studio Bones adapted it into a 51 episode anime starting in 2008.  Bones is famous for such anime as Eureka 7, Wolf’s Rain, Darker Than Back (Which I’m currently watching) and the mega popular Fullmetal Alchemist (Both the original and the new one “Brotherhood”).  So yeah, these guys have a pretty good track record of popular cartoons.  Those guys at FUNimation Entertainment brought it to the US just last year (2010), though their trailer for the show is god awful and they should feel bad about how misleading it is.   Anyway Soul Eater is basically what happens when you mix Naruto and Harry Potter, set it in Halloween Town from The Nightmare Before Christmas, remove any excess logic you might find in the ingredients and then set the blender to “Action Comedy”.   Now that may sound really good to you and if it does God bless you.  For the rest of us this will likely sound like a train wreck of overdone ideas waiting to happen.

By the way if I’m reading this correctly it looks like it took me over three months to finish watching this show.  I had to start and stop a few times sometimes going weeks without watching it.  Part of this is because I was distracted by other shows (Samurai 7 especially).   Most of this was because it was such a goddamn long show.  It’s about twice as many episodes as the longest show I previously reviwed on this blog.  Do you have any idea how depressing it is to try to power through thirteen episodes of anime only to realize you’re only about a quarter of the way through it?

Ahem.  Moving on.

Nom nom nom

Years ago Shimigami/Lord Death (Depending on if which language you’re watching this in) created an academy for weapon meisters and their demon weapon partners (Humans who can take the form of weapons.  Why or how?  Hell if I know) hone their skills in order to battle the forces of evil that populate the world.  Enter: Maka Albarn, a smart, cheerful, but surprisingly intense and determined meister student whose goal is to turn her partner Soul Eater into one of Lord Death’s personal death scythe weapons.  To do this Soul must absorb 99 evil human souls and one soul of a witch, who are the main enemies of their school.

Despite the fact that the show itself looks like a giant bag a of thrown together B.S. meant to cash in on several different franchises Soul Eater is actually one of the best anime I’ve seen since I started this experiment last April.  In fact for almost the entire first half of this show I was pretty sure that, short of any unforeseen disasters, I would be awarding it my second Perfect Panda Score for an anime.  Well….unforeseen disasters did indeed strike.  The show fell for below the expectations I had for it in the beginning and fails to be on the same level as Gurren Lagann.  But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Six seconds before Maka takes your soul

All things considered this is a really fun anime.  The world presented is wacky but action packed and is extremely bright and colorful.   It follows a similar formula that Gurren Lagann did, mixing slapstick comedy and action while throwing out logic in favor of BECAUSE IT’S COOL.  I really dug the fight scenes for the most part, although I noticed some minor stock footage issues here and there.  Plus the main charcter, despite her partner being the title character, is clearly Maka, a young girl.  How awesome is it that a female is the protagonist of what is basically a shonen anime (Though I will likely get into this subject later, for those of you who don’t know “shonen” is a style of manga and anime that refers to its demographic, “young boys”, rather than subject matter.  I’m not sure why but many of these show send up targeting much older viewers in America than originally intended).   Sure she may be a little insecure for my usual taste and her skirt may be alarming short for such a young girl but at the end of the day she is a strong and determined female lead character and does not play second fiddle to her male co-stars.  That’s really important.  Also one of the main villains, Medusa, may be one of my favorite anime villains ever (I’m still deciding).  She’s just so sickeningly evil. She’s basally the magical version of a mad scientist and she seems convinced that the whole world is part of her experiment.  Her many acts of sadism over the course of show are all completely unforgivable and she herself is an unrepentant and irredeemable monster.  I can’t think of many villains that I wanted to be horribly murdered for her crimes as much as her.

SCIENCE!!!

I also liked the character designs.  Though not everyone is a winner the main cast and the villains all have (Mostly) unique looks that are visually striking and sometimes hilarious.  Though the soundtrack kind of escapes my memory I really liked the various opening and ending themes to varying degrees (Except the second ending.  Yuck) but I’m especially fond of the first ending “I Wanna Be” by Stance Punks.  Unfortunately I was unable to watch the subtitled Japanese version of the show and could only watch the English dub…but what a dub it was!  It’s one of the best one I’ve ever heard and it’s one of those great examples of how much better licensers have become about recording really good performances.  All in all there’s just a lot to like about this show.

There’s also a lot to dislike about this series.

First of all artwork itself is not good.  It’s not as bad as Gurren Lagann was (The reason I keep bringing that show up is because Soul Eater reminds me a lot of it) but it still pretty noticeably subpar.  This is especially terrible on episodes where then animation budget wasn’t in full effect and man did it hurt my eyes.  In addition it suffers from a similar problem as Dojin Work in that background characters are either just colorless forms or sometimes grey blobs.  If you aren’t a named character you don’t even warrant a color scheme; that’s pretty sad.  The result is that the world doesn’t seem very populated.  The weird thing is that this doesn’t happen all the time, usually just at the academy.  I’d think if the creators were going to have actual background models in any point in the series it would be the most recurring location, but really what do I know?  Also some of the weird artistic choices don’t work well. The main example is that the damn moon and the sun are anthropomorphic monsters with horrifying quasi-human faces.  This is never addressed in the show.  And they freak me the hell out.

Characters are a problem too, at least partly.  On the one hand I like most of the main cast on the surface.  In addition to Maka and Soul there are two other teams that make up the main cast; Black☆Star, a character who is so similar to Uzumaki Naruto that I can only assume he’s supposed to be an over the top parody, and his partner Tsubaki, a young woman who has multiple weapon forms, as well as Death the Kid, Lord Death’s son who suffers from an extreme OCPD problem when it comes to symmetry, and his dual pistols Liz and Patty (The Thompson Sisters), former hooligans whom Kid wields upside down for some stupid ass reason.   They each have their own distinct, memorable and sometimes outrageous personalities which makes much of the series extremely fun to watch (Such as Black☆Star’s constant declaration of being a “Big Man” and “Surpassing God”).  On the surface they mostly fine.  Unfortunately we seem to barely go beneath the surface with most of them.  Even Maka doesn’t seem to have much reasoning behind her goals in the anime aside from her daddy issues.  With a few exceptions the main characters are one joke archetypes greatly expanded upon, which isn’t the same as being fully fleshed out characters.   Now Black☆Star surprisingly got a lot of time devoted to explaining who he is and what happened in his past to make him such a loud mouthed idiot but others like Kid and Soul don’t get the same treatment.  Hell in researching for this review I found out that Soul actually has a pretty interesting back story that NEVER gets mentioned in the anime.  Nor do we even find out the details in how Maka and Soul became partners in the first place.  All other side characters and antagonist (Aside from the “Final Boss”, Crona and Medusa, kind of) don’t matter and aren’t very interesting due to lack of development.

Guns aren't held that way, you meat head

In fact the real problem is that the show was made before the manga was finished (Which it still isn’t as of January 2011) and thus when the anime caught up with its source material around episode 30 or so the writers started making up their own story that turned out to be different from the comic.  Many, many anime have this sort of thing happen to them though Fullmetal Alchemist is the closet example I can think of (Being around the same episode count and being done by the same studio), and a lot of people seem to believe that that show was pretty good so maybe it’s not universally a bad thing.  In this case it means that characters, especially secondary characters, are very shallow and what would seem like key story points aren’t explored very deeply.  For example why the world is populated by humans who turn into weapons is not explained very well and I had to look it up on the internet to find a (Slightly) more satisfying explanation.  I have also learned that a bunch of characters in the original manga had tons of character defining traits and actions that just don’t make an appearance in the show.  I feel like I’m watching the "Diet Coke version" of Soul Eater.

What’s worse is that the ending of this show sucks.  I don’t want to give too bad a spoiler but long story short the final boss of the show is defeated by a combination of being “attacked” by a strong emotional outburst and being sternly talked to.  What the hell is this?  Sailor Moon?  Action based shows need action based climaxes!

Hey, a black dude!  I bet he's really important to the story!
(No.  No he is not)

To put it another way I really, really liked this show up until about episode 30 which coincidentally is where the new material starts to begin.  In the end I liked he first half because it was lighthearted yet ridiculous with its comedy-action style but things slow down later and also get a bit more angst fueled and serious.  Now maybe the manga did as well; I don’t know, I haven’t read it.  But I do know that, as its own piece of work, it was a tremendous disappointment that a show stated out so strong was unable to keep that pace up.  Had it done so it would have likely been one of my favorite anime of all time.  As it is it’s simply a good anime.  And make no mistake, this is good stuff.  Themes about friendship, likeable characters (Even Death the Kid who somehow manages NOT to be the spoiled kid archetype), fun fight scenes and lots of laughs; all ingredients for Beta Bait.  I have probably been a little hard on this show but that’s mainly because it’s not as good as I’d like it to be.  That’ doesn’t mean it’s not a very worthy series to add to your collection.  At the end of the day this is one of the better anime I’ve looked at this past year and I’m eagerly anticipating the next time I get around to watching it again.  I wrote a lot about this show but I feel like I barely scratched the surface of what it has to offer.  I highly recommend checking it out for yourself.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Excalibur.  Well I’m running out of time so perhaps this video will explain things in lieu of me having to type even more.

Pictured: The Holy Sword
Not Pictured: His ability to shut the hell up

I give Soul Eater 4 Adorable Pandas out of 5.

Pros

-Strong Female Lead and fun main characters

-Unique character designs

-Great English Dub

-Good Action

Cons

-Animation has several problems

-Characters are actually a bit flat, especially supporting ones

-Possesses a rate unsatisfying conclusion

-The whole show doesn’t feel very in-depth

Unless I’m wrong this makes the ninth new (Well, new to me) anime I’ve watched and reviewed in under a year.  Am I an otaku yet?   In any event expect the next anime review, unless my plans change which they easily could do, to be a much larger entry as I review not one but two shows about baseball.  This is going to suck.

Nerd Rage #5: Superman/Batman, Protector/Defender

So I had an interesting take on the superhero character that I had been meaning to share with people for a number of months but it wasn’t until today that I came up with a  phrase to articulate it properly.  In order to talk about this idea we need to be on the same page about Superman and Batman.

World's Finest et cetera et cetera

Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster as early as 1933 (Or some early proto version anyway) but it wouldn’t be until 1938 that the character appeared in comic book form.  Though he was not the first superhero character he became the defining example and was the archetype that many writers and artists based their own creations on: a hero with powers beyond those of the average person chooses to use them to serve humanity, usually in the form of fighting vicious criminals or other post-human threats that normal law officers aren’t able to deal with.  So if we agree that Superman is the archetype then Batman is likely the first major, or at least most popular, deconstruction.

Created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger in 1939 Batman was in many ways Superman’s perfect superhero opposite.  While Superman was an alien with many superhuman powers Batman s a normal human but the best representation of human potential (Both physically and mentally).  While Superman was raised by normal farmers and picked up Midwest sensibilities growing up Batman came from wealth and lived in luxury for his whole life while a the same time having lost his parents at an early age.   However I feel the two have since come to represent the two main archetype that the vast majority of superheroes fall under.  Both characters are two sides of the same coin, one dark and the other light though this distinction wouldn’t be fully fleshed out for a while in the comic industry.  Today both are clearly defined not only in these two but most characters in just about every company that publishes superhero comics.  I call them “The Protector” and “The Defender”

Actually there’s likely a third archetype but I’m getting a head of myself.

Superman is the Protector.  What defines him the most is his need not only to help as many people as he can but to also be a symbol of hope to the masses.  As such the Protector must always be aware of how his actions are interpreted by those he serves.  In Superman’s case, being so strong, he must be extra concerned about being seen as an all powerful menace or even a monstrous being who wishes to control the lives of the average person (Lex Luthor’s main motivation is that he misunderstands Superman in this regard).  He shows constant good will to help this perception and ultimately is seen as a clear cut “good guy.”  Because he doesn’t want to be feared he never (Or at least “rarely”) blurs the line between hero and villain because the moment he does he risks his ability to give his community, his country, mankind, etc. the hope he wanted to instill.  There is a strong sense of optimism associated with this archetype.

Batman is the Defender.  Like the Protector he too wants to help others but unlike his lighter counterpart he either doesn’t care or at least isn’t concerned that much about his own public image.  He wants to defend people for the horrors that threaten them and will do so with more abandon than the Protector.  It doesn’t matter to him if people hate or fear him, or ever acknowledges that he exists, so long as they’re safe.  He can be seen as similarly villainous as those he fights but as he’s less concerned about giving hope and more concerned about bringing evil doers to justice he is comfortable with that perception.  While he doesn’t cross the line between hero and villain he does come close enough to it to be tempted to do so.   He’s the Protector’s cynical twin.

Both of these archetypes are equally valid, neither one being better or worse than the other.  Although you might have a preference it doesn’t mean the other isn’t still as important.  Damn near every superhero since the 1940s have followed one or the other.

Here’s a few traits of both.  This is obviously not a complete list but it should give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

The Protector

For legal reasons I must refer to this person as "SHAZAM!"
It's neither his name nor do I care to call him such

-Is usually well liked and trusted by citizens.  She makes public appearances, she knows the mayor, she kisses babies.  The more powerful they are the more necessary this is since the general public would be utterly terrified of a being that could, if she wanted to, destroy their cities with little effort if she didn’t make efforts to appease them

-Usually works with authorities much for the same reason as above.  He may be an agent of the government but usually it’s more like he wants to show good faith by working within the system.   Similarly he is more likely to go by the letter of the law so he is not seen as considering himself to be above it

-Won’t use lethal force unless absolutely no other option presents itself and even then still maybe not.  In fact often the Protector will likely even go to great lengths to make sure that even murderous criminals survive encounters for a fair trial, even at the cost of her own life.  In Superman’s own words “The world doesn’t need a Superman who kills”

-Is usually optimistic about the world to the point that they sincerely believe in concepts like “forgiveness” and “second chances”, although this usually does not extend to beings they considered to be true evil and beyond redemption.  Some Protectors are more cynical about this however and need definitive proof that the person in question truly wants to change and even then may still be suspicious

-Can be someone who views the world in Black and White/Right and Wrong but usually they understand the concept of “grey morality”.  They simply choose not to live in the that area

-Often the most powerful heroes fall into this.  Though the really scary characters are the really power ones who don’t (CoughcoughTheSentrycoughcough).  Anyway this tends to make a lot of fans claim the Protector isn’t relatable, but that’s a whole different blog, I’m sure

-Has a defining trait of trying to protect as many people as they possibly can, and in some cases that can be a lot.  For example Superman, due to his super senses and super speed, can detect pretty much every mugging in Metropolis and stop it before anyone can get hurt

-Will automatically stop being a Protector is he ever permanently loses his faith in people in general.  If he continues on fighting for justice despite this he will become the Defender.  He is however unlikely to ever become an Anti-Hero (More on that later)

-Usually has a sense of honor and perhaps fair play, though this could be worked against her if she’s set in her ways

Pictured:  A mighty shield
Not Pictured: The Nazi about to eat it

Examples: Captain America is probably the penultimate example of this type despite having no powers.  He is, of course, handicapped by the fact that his lives in a more cynical world than Supes.  The Fantastic Four, who by in large represent the best the Silver Age had to offer, also fit the bill.  Iron Man fits this as well due to his tendency to work as an agent for US interests (Thus proving that this type isn’t all positive), especially after the events of Civil War and The Initiative.  Most members of the Avengers tend to fall under this, especially when grouped together. The Justice League of America and, indeed, the majority of heroes in the DC Universe fall into this as well due in large part to the hero community being largely inspired by Superman.  Interestingly Batman’s original sidekick Dick Grayson, often known as Nightwing, has more potential to fit into this category than the Defender as he has always been a lighter, more optimistic version of his mentor.  Even Batman often slides into his as well (The current Batman INC. storyline may be the most recent example).

The Defender

Grace Choi will kick your ass

-Is usually more concerned with catching criminals than good PR, but the tradeoff is that his reputation tends to suffer.   At its worse the media and the authorities decry him as a criminal himself and he must constantly stay ahead of the very people he wants to protect, lest they “bring him to justice”

-Is often either a non-powered hero or a lower powered hero compared to other powerful beings.  This is not universal as its not powers or lack thereof that determine the type but rather mindset

-Can be abrasive and unpleasant, though this is not universal.  The problem is more in that the nature of their work can deeply affect their ability to properly interact with others.  Ironically despite many non-powered characters fitting this type the Defender is usually more likely to lose his humanity during his war on crime

-Can work with authorities but usually not as a whole.  They will normally have a liaison with police to help them keep track of what’s going on crime-wise but the relationship is usually unofficial and the person may be in trouble if it were ever discovered.  This is usually because…

-Will often break laws to save lives.  The Protector can do this as well but the Defender won’t hesitate to do this as often as he feels necessary.  Usually this includes something like breaking and entering, assault and of course vigilantism but some Defenders can be guilty of stalking, kidnapping, terrorism, possession of illegal weapons and in some cases attempted murder and/or murder.

-Isn’t a believer in second chances, usually.  He’ll likely be very suspicious of anyone claiming they’ve changed their ways no matter how many times they proved themselves

-Doesn’t usually use lethal force, though she can be more brutal than the Protector.  While for the Protector avoiding killing is about maintaining the hope/fear ratio many Defenders use it as the line that separates them from those she fight.  Sometimes the Defender does indeed use lethal force but it’s usually reserved for those who either really have it coming and she doesn’t tend to kill indiscriminately (As in they may try to shoot the Joker but they probably wouldn’t immediately gun down the goons working for him)

-Is far more likely to become an Anti-Hero (More on that later) but conversely finds it harder to become a Protector as it’s easier to lose faith than to gain it

-Has a code of honor, much like Protectors.  Often they are extremely similar, but the Defender may be more talkative about it.  I’m not sure why this is

Examples: As Batman is the poster child for this all of the Batman Family fall into this with maybe the exception of Dick Grayson and Stephanie Brown.  Luke Cage (Shut your mouth) falls squarely into it as well.  Most of Marvel’s “street level heroes” do too, including Daredevil and Moonknight (Who may be a Batman rip-off anyway).  Many new characters created during the 70s and 80s fit this description as well, especially if Marvel was involved.  The newest Manhunter (Kate Spencer, one of my favorite new characters from the 2000s) is probably right t the edge of the line between Defender and Anti-Hero.  Every hero who followed Hal Jordon (aka Green Lantern) on his quest for vengeance JUSTICE in the miniseries Justice League: Cry for Justice fell into this, despite where they might have been beforehand.  The X-Men are certainly Defenders due to their militant nature, outsider perspective, and designation as “outlaws”.  Yes, even Cyclops.  Hell, especially Cyclops.

Cyclops completes his transformation into "Jack Bauer-Man"

Spider-Man is a weird case.  On the one hand I think his ideology is closer to the Protector.  He does, after all, greatly look up to Captain America as an example. But his reputation is not very good and he suffers from much of the same civilian backlash a Defender would get.  I think it depends on who’s writing him at the time but in general Spider-Man may kind of bounce between one and the other.  Maybe he wants to be a Protector but he keeps finding himself as a Defender despite his wishes.  Similarly Wonder Woman could be placed in either due to the (Poor) nature her character is sometimes written.  However in her case I believe the spirit of her character should mark her as a Protector.

The Third Option

This is my nightmare!

As I mentioned there’s a third option to this.  As you’ve probably figured out by now it’s the Anti-Hero.  He is the cyclical cousin to the Defender the same way the Defender is to the Protector.  Though they may have taken different roads to get there all Anti-Heroes are characters who don’t just come close to the line but regularly cross it.  At best they are vigilantes not unlike Defenders who kill opponents regularly.  At worst they’re psychopathic monsters who’s goals just happen to involve “fighting crime/evil” and sometimes not even then.  The deference between these characters and the villains they fight are either blurred or they just happen to battle some really terrifying creatures.   Usually they do not share the same since of ethics as Protectors or Defenders; indeed Protectors will often be unable to work with them.   This type of character has been involved in superhero comics since the beginning (Namor, the Submariner) but they rose in popularity during the 1970s through the 1990s.  During the 90s creators took this to its logical, but frustrating, conclusion with gun toting muscle men becoming the favored type of hero.  Even previously indentfied Protectors or Defenders fell into this trap even if just for a limited amount of time.

I don’t really have a problem with these types of characters in general, at least in more cynical settings, but in comics with established superhero continuity it always feels out of place to me; like they should actually be a new villain rather than a new ally (There are exceptions, of course).   If you’re unsure whether yours favorite character falls into this category try answering the following questions:

-Does the character use killing as a first resort, even with enemies less powerful and/or less skilled than themselves?

-Is the character a former villain?  Specifically were they a villain for a substantial amount of time of their own volition (As opposed to forced, blackmailed or otherwise controlled)?

-Has a Protector and maybe even also a Defender suggested that the character be arrested for their crimes?

-Has the publisher ever used the word “edgy” to describe the character?  How about some variation of the phrase “This isn’t your daddy’s superhero”?

-Does the character use guns as their primary means of attack?

-Does the character perform heroic deeds for a paycheck?

-Does the character fight for vengeance, despite claims of fighting for justice?

-Is the character associated with Satan or an equivalent evil creature?  Is he or she associated with hell in anyway?

-Does the character’s name include the word “blood”, “death”, or some sort of negative emotion or violent action?

-If a movie were made of the character would you be upset to learn that it was rated PG-13 instead of R?

-Is the character a Wolverine clone? (Be honest)

-Is the character actually Wolverine?

If you answered “yes” to two of those questions then you character may be an Anti-Hero.  If you answered “yes” to three then he is nearly 100% certainly an Anti-Hero.  If you answered “yes” to four or more then I’m surprised that the character hasn’t been taken down by Captain America yet.

Just smile and nod.  Don't make eye contact

Examples: The Punisher is likely the most obvious example of this, but on his better days he might lightly be able to pass as a Defender.  Maybe.  If it was foggy outside.  Spawn, Image Comics 90s poster boy, is another “iconic” example.  The Authority are a particularly brutal example, but then again they’re from the WildStorm Universe and pretty much everyone there is some sort of Ant-Hero or another.  Also Ghost Rider and the Spectre respectively depending on who’s writing them.  Daredevil’s fall from Defender to Anti-Hero is the main plot in the recent Shadowland story Marvel just recently finished.

Anyway Anti-Heroes notwithstanding the Protector and the Defender make up the bulk of superheroes.  They’re the same but the opposite.  The yin to the other’s yang.   This is how I think about and its easily just opinion.  Agree?  Disagree?  Let me know.

Review: True Grit (2010)

I think I like Westerns.  This is sort of news to me since during most of my young adulthood they were sort of out of fashion and I never bothered to watched many of the classics.  However I have seen a few of the ones produced during this past decade.  The 3:10 to Yuma remake was pretty good…until the ending when it all went to hell, of course.  I also really liked Appaloosa so now I tend to get excited when a new Western comes out (I also like the video game Red Dead Redemption, though that’s beyond the scope of this blog).  True Grit is the latest Western to be crafted by Hollywood.  It shares a name with the old John Wayne film but it seems that rather than a remake it’s more like a new adaptation of the original novel by Charles Portis.  Weirdly this movie is directed by Joel & Ethan Coen and I say “weirdly” because I was able to watch the whole movie without being made to feel depressed with the trademark black humor and general disdain for all things pleasant and happy.  Seriously when I saw No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading I was left an emotionally drained husk of a man.  Well I can say that this film avoids that trap.

As you may already be aware due to my Top Ten Movies of 2010 list I am rather fond of this film.

[WARNING: This review contains minor spoilers]

14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) has arrived in Fort Smith, Arkansas to recover the body of her murdered father but soon aims to bring his killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), to justice.  After managing to get a good chunk of money to work with she sets off to hire a US Marshal of true grit to help her track down and capture, or possibly kill, the murderous Chaney who has reportedly gotten involved in with a notorious gang.

True Grit is basically two hours of this

This film is funny, full of violence and has a bittersweet ending at best so in that regard it very much is a movie by the Coen Brothers, but it’s a straight Western.  It’s not some novel genre blend or a deconstruction: it’s a good old fashion cowboy flick that was clearly lovingly made.  Unlike several of their other films it doesn’t end abruptly or heartbreaking: it’s a very satisfying ending for what we saw.  So in a lot of ways this is my favorite film of theirs, including The Big Lebowski and O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?

Speaking of The Dude I should point out that Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn is better acted and probably a better character than Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn.  So if you can only take so much of the guy in short span of time I’d say pick this movie over Tron: Legacy (Although that movie is not nearly a terrible as people have been saying).  Bridges plays drunk old bastard surprisingly (?) well. But, despite what the advertisements would have you believe, he is not the star of this film; Haliee Steinfeld is.  Her film debut this young girl, thirteen at the time of shooting apparently, knocks it out of the park.  She is by far the most interesting actor in the film playing the extremely complex Ross perfectly.  As I once said about Chloë Grace Moretz if she stays clean and away from the Jazz & Liquor she’ll likely be a force in Hollywood in the coming years.   For some horrifyingly stupid reason she has been nominated for many awards of "Best Supporting Actress”.  What the hell is wrong with you, Hollywood?  Did you actually see this film?  She’s clearly the protagonist of the movie, how is she supporting anyone?  She should be up for Best Actress all the way down the line, you fools!  The Oscars have yet to be announced as of this writing but if Steinfeld isn’t given he proper nod than I may lose all faith in the Academy.  Long story short she has an extremely difficult role, an ornery young girl who is clearly older than her yeas, and she plays it extremely well.  One of the best debuts I’ve ever seen.

The whole cast is very good, not just the actors but the characters themselves are a great ensemble with pretty memorable folks.  Brolin is fine as Tom Chaney but he’s really hardly in this film.  Honestly he was no better or worse than Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned (Which is still very good) who is in the movie for about as long but doesn’t appear on the billing.  Weird.  If there’s a weak link it's Matt Damon but the more I think about it the more I’m convinced that it’s not him but rather that his character LaBoeuf is kind of dull, especially next to the large than life Rooster Cogburn.  Still he’s not bad but he does feel like he’s taking screen time away from the other two main characters at times.

One of these people is a mean, ill tempered so and so
The other is named "Rooster"

The story isn’t anything real deep, it’s just a typical “Fugitive went that-a-way, let’s go wrangle him up” plot.  What sets it apart is the strong characters and the humor.  The Coen Brothers are known for their black comedy and it certainly shows up here.  Mostly the comedy is driven either by Rooster’s grizzled/drunken escapades or Mattie’s shrewish yet polite nature (You best not make her mad.  She has a good lawyer).  This isn’t a comedy but it helps keep this potentially dark tale accessible.   The epilogue was a bit heart-wrenching but nothing compared to some of the Coen’s other works.  The dialogue was clever and fun, but again that’s something that the directors are known for so it’s likely not surprising.  I could see this film being nominated for Best Film or Best Adapted Screenplay at this year’s Oscars.  I really liked the locations this movie was filmed on as well.  The towns looked very authentic as well, not that I’d know.  Same can be said about the costumes.  So all in all the art direction looks mighty fine.

As for what the film does wrong…well, there’s a fat dude who keep making gross animal noises.  He kind of sucks.  But he gets shot so it all works out.  That’s it.  That’s the only negative thing I can think of to say about this movie.

Despite what everyone seems to be saying SHE IS THE STAR

I find this movie as close to flawless as movies tend to be.  Great characters, great dialogue, great acting, and an ending I can wrap my head around and no obvious flaws; that’s the formula of a movie that I consider among the best.   I couldn’t have enjoyed this film more.  Forget being the most enjoyable Western I’ve ever seen; this is one of my favorite movies of the year.  I strongly recommend this movie to any and everybody because, unlike Inception or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, there’s nothing about it that should alienate audiences: no complex science fiction elements or bizarre comic elements.

I give True Grit 5 Adorable Pandas out of 5

Pros

-Great acting from the cast

-A great cast of characters

-Amusing dialogue

-A good amount of gun fighting

Cons

- Hailee Steinfeld has apparently been demoted to second banana during Award Season