Caro and Hanz (the authors of this blog, under the psuedonym Beckony) have offically posted the first Real Men Wear Tights youtube video. It's recorded on a crappy webcam, and is only the second video Caro has ever edited, but we're still proud of it!
Part 1 of our review of Batman: Under the Red Hood can be found at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKLb97K8qEA
P.S. Don't forget to vote in the new poll!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Batman: Under the Red Hood
Batman: Under the Red Hood came out last Tuesday, and me being the geek I am bought it on the first day and watched it.
Overall, I thought it was good but there were definitely some flaws.
First up was Joker's voice. He sounded more like Lex Luthor than the Joker, and it was obvious they were going for a Heath Ledger motif which didn't work well in animation (my friend, who feels about Joker the way I do about Batman, took particular issue with this).
Secondly, Dick Grayson's character design wasn't right. His hair was way too short and he was too buff for a lean acrobat.
The ending, while close to the one in the graphic novel, could have benefited from taking more from the original. A lot of the original punch was missing from this watered-down version.
The movie did have it's high points. The animation on the fight scenes and acrobatics was excellent, better even than some of the Justice League stuff. And Joker (however messed up they may have made him) had a fantastic scene with the Black Mask that made both me and my fellow comic nerd laugh for a good thirty seconds.
All in all, I rate this one around a 6.5/10.
Once I get a digital voice recorder (or figure out how to turn off the camera part of my webcam), me and Hanz, the fellow comic nerd, will be doing a full commentary on Under the Red Hood. This will serve as either the first or second episode of the podcast we're working on.
Overall, I thought it was good but there were definitely some flaws.
First up was Joker's voice. He sounded more like Lex Luthor than the Joker, and it was obvious they were going for a Heath Ledger motif which didn't work well in animation (my friend, who feels about Joker the way I do about Batman, took particular issue with this).
Secondly, Dick Grayson's character design wasn't right. His hair was way too short and he was too buff for a lean acrobat.
The ending, while close to the one in the graphic novel, could have benefited from taking more from the original. A lot of the original punch was missing from this watered-down version.
The movie did have it's high points. The animation on the fight scenes and acrobatics was excellent, better even than some of the Justice League stuff. And Joker (however messed up they may have made him) had a fantastic scene with the Black Mask that made both me and my fellow comic nerd laugh for a good thirty seconds.
All in all, I rate this one around a 6.5/10.
Once I get a digital voice recorder (or figure out how to turn off the camera part of my webcam), me and Hanz, the fellow comic nerd, will be doing a full commentary on Under the Red Hood. This will serve as either the first or second episode of the podcast we're working on.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Ellis' Authority vs. Millar's Authority
Recently, I discovered that I'd read ever Batman book the library had. Since the Marvel universe looks completely confusing, and most of the other DC titles were checked out, I began my first foray into non-DC Comics titles. one of the first I picked up was The Authority.
Now having consumed the first run (all the library has, dang it), I'm chiming in on the Ellis-vs-Millar debate. I'm a little nervous to do it on a forum (have you heard some of the crazy people there? And I thought I was an uber nerd), but hey, that's what a blog is for.
Personally, I thought that while the Millar issues were a little clumsy, and definitely inelegant compared to Ellis' run, Millar's plots weren't as formulaic as Ellis'.
Millar might have been hampered by the fact that Jenny Sparks--the most kick-ass heroine ever--was dead, but that doesn't excuse his liberal use of dues ex machina at the end of issue #29. Also, Millar was sincerely lacking in character development for every one except Jenny Quantum, Midnighter, and Jack Hawksmore. I felt that he was too wrapped up in an awesome plot and accidentally painted himself into a corner.
However, he gets props for having a Apollo-cares-for-Midnighter scene, as opposes to the other way around (one of Ellis' big follies, and not unlike the case of them always depowering Superman in the first season of JL--Apollo simply came off as weak).
Ellis had his own share of problems. The first three or so storylines of the run ran basically along the same lines, and I even think the same Apollo-gets-beaten (sorry to harp on it but it seriously annoyed me) happened twice. Midnighter was pretty badass, though.
All in all, I think I preferred Ellis run. Millar's run was too problematic and a little too hamfisted for my tastes. The execution, ultimately, was shaky compared to Ellis' sure grasp of the characters. While Millar seemed to ignore all characterization in favor of his plot, but ultimately undermined himself because of the book's incomplete feel.
Now having consumed the first run (all the library has, dang it), I'm chiming in on the Ellis-vs-Millar debate. I'm a little nervous to do it on a forum (have you heard some of the crazy people there? And I thought I was an uber nerd), but hey, that's what a blog is for.
Personally, I thought that while the Millar issues were a little clumsy, and definitely inelegant compared to Ellis' run, Millar's plots weren't as formulaic as Ellis'.
Millar might have been hampered by the fact that Jenny Sparks--the most kick-ass heroine ever--was dead, but that doesn't excuse his liberal use of dues ex machina at the end of issue #29. Also, Millar was sincerely lacking in character development for every one except Jenny Quantum, Midnighter, and Jack Hawksmore. I felt that he was too wrapped up in an awesome plot and accidentally painted himself into a corner.
However, he gets props for having a Apollo-cares-for-Midnighter scene, as opposes to the other way around (one of Ellis' big follies, and not unlike the case of them always depowering Superman in the first season of JL--Apollo simply came off as weak).
Ellis had his own share of problems. The first three or so storylines of the run ran basically along the same lines, and I even think the same Apollo-gets-beaten (sorry to harp on it but it seriously annoyed me) happened twice. Midnighter was pretty badass, though.
All in all, I think I preferred Ellis run. Millar's run was too problematic and a little too hamfisted for my tastes. The execution, ultimately, was shaky compared to Ellis' sure grasp of the characters. While Millar seemed to ignore all characterization in favor of his plot, but ultimately undermined himself because of the book's incomplete feel.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Why I Still Don't Trust Grant Morrison
My friend and I have been having an ongoing conversation (read: argument) over whether Grant Morrison should be forgiven, by virtue of Batman and Robin of the sin that was RIP. She say yes (she's a really big Damien Wayne fan) and I disagree.
10 reasons I still don't trust Morrison:
1. Final Crisis. I've never understood the whole New Gods thing, and this didn't help.
2. The whole need to put 70+ years of Batman stories (the good, the badm and the ugly) into a supposed 10 years of Bruce Wayne's career. Please. That's just not possible, even for a ninja.
3. Ever since he went on the Batman books, every other story arc has been The Event of the YEAR!!! I'm starting to get event fatigue from all of these Revolutionary! Important! Vital! stories
4. I never liked Talia/Bruce.
5. A shiny, happy Batman and an emo Robin. It was fun for awhile, but its getting old now.
6. He can't make up his mind on how to portray the Joker.
7. The Authority debacle. (Speaking of the Authority, I had a dream about Midnighter and Apollo last night. It made my day).
8. He seems to be stuck inside his own head. A five year long meta story? Seriously, dude?
9. Barbra and Dick stull aren't married. Not his fault, I know, but methinks that if Dick wasn't busy being Batman there would have been a little more on the romance front. Their engagement seems to be completely forgotten by DC at this point.
10. I still have no clue what the heck that was supposed to be at the end of Return of Bruce Wayne #2.
10 reasons I still don't trust Morrison:
1. Final Crisis. I've never understood the whole New Gods thing, and this didn't help.
2. The whole need to put 70+ years of Batman stories (the good, the badm and the ugly) into a supposed 10 years of Bruce Wayne's career. Please. That's just not possible, even for a ninja.
3. Ever since he went on the Batman books, every other story arc has been The Event of the YEAR!!! I'm starting to get event fatigue from all of these Revolutionary! Important! Vital! stories
4. I never liked Talia/Bruce.
5. A shiny, happy Batman and an emo Robin. It was fun for awhile, but its getting old now.
6. He can't make up his mind on how to portray the Joker.
7. The Authority debacle. (Speaking of the Authority, I had a dream about Midnighter and Apollo last night. It made my day).
8. He seems to be stuck inside his own head. A five year long meta story? Seriously, dude?
9. Barbra and Dick stull aren't married. Not his fault, I know, but methinks that if Dick wasn't busy being Batman there would have been a little more on the romance front. Their engagement seems to be completely forgotten by DC at this point.
10. I still have no clue what the heck that was supposed to be at the end of Return of Bruce Wayne #2.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Decoding Brightest Day
DC just released this Brightest Day poster, which appears to be along the same lines as the Final Crisis posters that were in the comics a few years back (wow, do you realize its been two years since Batman RIP?). I'm really crappy at the whole decoding symbolism thing, and quite frankly I was still scratch my head when the Final Crisis pages were explained. Still, if anyone wants to take a crack at it...
