Greetings, all! You know I'm writing to you guys from the future, right? I don't know how it works, since I'm a fake mailman and not a quantum physicist. Doesn't matter. What matters is could one of you maybe bury a big box of booze, guns, and porn by the oak tree three miles north of Portland? I'm, uh, asking for a friend.
Sailor Lantern art by Maelstromknight.
Not Easy Bein' Green
Good Apocalyptic Morning to you!!!
How's the toxic smog this morning? Semi-transluscent? Awesome.
I just read your response as to who would make a good Green Lantern and I gotta say, Snake Eyes Green Lantern would be the Shizz!!!! As would an Optimus Prime GL.
Now, in your opinion, who WOULDN'T make a good Green Lantern or who wouldn't be accepted? I'm thinking Arm Fall Off Lad would be one right off the bat who gets declined membership. Ronan the Accuser and all of his Accusers... those dudes basically laid down when the isn was hitting the fan during the Infinity storyline.
So, who else would you suggest not be granted permission to the ring slinger club? Thanks!
If you assume that the emotion of Willpower is the main requirement for being a Green Lantern, there are so many heroes who don't have the goods. Luke Skywalker spends most of the original trilogy whining and not following orders, so I'm pretty sure he's out. Iron Man's faltered on more than a few occasions in his semi-illustrious career, especially because he occasionally doesn't have the willpower to stay off the booze. I think someone suggested Captain Mal Reynolds from Firefly would be a good GL, but I disagree — he's much too practical to be indomitable. Young characters with any self-doubt like Sailor Moon shouldn't have the wherewithal to receive a ring. Ash from Army of Darkness is definitely not getting one. Basically, any hero who's willing to cut and run when necessary technically doesn't have the willpower to be a Green Lantern. This doesn't necessarily indicate cowardice, as much as practicality — willpower requires single-mindedness, which isn't always a desirable quality.
Now, I'm sure someone can give me a dozen examples of Lanterns retreating when necessary, but I say that's more examples of them not having willpower than willpower including the ability to give up when tactically necessary. I'd also point out that the Green Lanterns were founded by short blue psychopaths who think that willpower is an emotion and give rings of immense power to squirrels, so I'd say the Green Lanterns were more or less messed up from the get-go.
So I've been working on this theory for a few weeks now, mainly since WB announced they were delaying the reveal of the new batsuit.
Now, it got me thinking...why is the batsuit so important that they would, effectively, be delaying the reveal to make it a better reveal? Granted, they think it's a complete rework of Batman we've "never seen in a movie before" (Matt Damon's words).
Taking Damon's description in mind, that leaves only 2 versions of the suit really: Blue and Grey, or....Red and Black. I think most people expect the former, but the latter is starting to make more sense.
DC is about to canonize Batman Beyond as THE future of the DCU, and the alternate versions of batman (earth 2, flashpoint, JL3000) are wearing a black/red combo. Since Ben is playing an old, grizzled batman that means his batman movies would star an old, grizzled batman, but no one wants geriatric batman, unless...well, that got me thinking...maybe the rumor from a couple years back that Batman Beyond would be the next film series has some truth to it.
My question is, am I crazy? or wouldn't Batman Beyond be the best option for the Batman films? They're a fresh take, lets you play around hard with the mythology without screwing things up, and again, it means we won't get a 3rd origin for Bruce Wayne.
Keep up the good work!
Yeah, sorry, you're totally crazy. Remember, Warner Bros. does not give a shit about the DC comics. At all. They almost never bother to use comic stories even as inspirations for their films, so even if DC does make Batman Beyond official, Warner Bros could not care less. And since WB doesn't care about the comics, they don't really care about the mythology, either. They're going to make their own movies, independent of whatever the hell DC is doing.
Maybe one day WB will have the balls (or the desperation) to make a movie with a twist on Batman as opposed regular Batman, but that's not going to be Batman Vs. Superman. And I'd bet you $100 that when WB does make that movie, it'll be its own weird random thing, rather than taking any inspiration from any established part of the DC mythos. WB does not trust the comics; I don't even think they like the comics. They'll use the characters, and everything else can go to hell.
By the way, is anyone else worried about Batfleck's bat-costume being "different"? Everyone kind of assumes it's going to be blue and grey, but again that assumes that WB cares even slightly about the comics or comics fans. All we know is that Jennifer Garner and Kevin Smith like it, and Garner doesn't strike me as much of a comic aficionado, and Kevin Smith thought it was a good idea to make Batman piss his pants. I'll be delighted if I'm wrong, but I think people should probably prepare for disaster.
North & South
I emailed a question about zombies last time with no response.....:( Oh well, here I go again. If there were a zombie apocalypse, whether they're slow moving or hyperactive they're still rotting, which region would be best to go into? Go up north like Canada or Alaska, or go down south closer to the equator like Central America, or just stay in Mexico. Many factors to considers. Many pros and cons. If you go up North, where the temperature is frigid, the decomposing bodies get stiffer to the point they can't move very well. But I'm no doctor so I have no idea how well preserved or useless a rotting zombie could function in Alaska. But the weather and food resources could be a problem in more colder environments to live off. But I'm not an expert on living in such conditions so maybe it's not so hard living in Alaska or Canada in a zombie apocalypse. But if you go down south where the heat is burning away all the zombies flesh to the point their muscles are gone and the can no longer move, then you just have to worry about the stench. Probably more to worry about in such a hot environment. Maybe easier to find wildlife but then worry more about disease. Plus if a zombie can't sweat I'm assuming their brain gets fried and they naturally go out by heat stroke. Perhaps in the end it's a matter of to each their own. But which way would be the ideal direction to find the right safe haven?
There are benefits in either direction. If you go north, then eventually it'll get so cold that zombies will freeze, rendering them harmless until they thaw out. If you go south — particularly to a warm, moist climate — this should help the putrefaction and decomposition of the zombies (although I promise you, zombies are not worried about sun stroke). As you said, the zombies would stay mobile in the warmer clime, but in the north food may be more scarce and, more importantly, the zombies will eventually thaw out and be a problem again.
So it's kind of a draw in my mind. Since I can't hunt and food's going to be a hassle for me wherever I go, I'm heading north just because I prefer cooler climates. But again, as an overweight nerd with bad vision and asthma, I am going to be among the first to go. I figure I'll make it a couple of miles max before I provide a nerdy buffet for the living dead.
Hey there World Restarter,
So can we talk about how Maggie used the best weapon EVER in the TWD the week before last and why only Michone has a badass decapitation-o-matic? It's a street sign and it kills like 100,000 zombies while dudes with guns get eaten by like 4.
Maggie did wield her sign with skill and aplomb, and she did destroy many a zombie with it. But something tells me the weight and its lack of a comfortable hand-grip would make it problematic for long term use. Also, I can see the sign getting bent on a zombie's skull, and then you just have a large and unwieldy club, which isn't going to do you much good. It did look cool, though.
I have been a Star Trek fan pretty much my whole life. I was 2 when TNG started, but I started watching it with my Dad during it's 3rd season. I've seen all the movies since Undiscovered Country in theaters and I LOVE the new movies. Yes, they are different from the shows that I love, but in my opinion, they got rid of the boring parts and injected some much needed life into the franchise. I walked out of both movies with a huge smile on my face. The negative fan reaction bothers me, mostly because they criticize the plot holes. If you go back and watch the TV shows and older movies, they are drowning in continuity errors and plot holes. The other complaint is that the philosophical aspect is missing. While the philosophy in the old show could be fantastic, they had a tendency to rely on it WAY too much. Sometimes it could be downright boring. As much as hardcore fans say they want the philosophy of the older Trek, they don't. Just look at The Matrix sequels. Sometimes, I'll take character development and Flash Gordon style action over debates about big social issues (I'm looking at you "Final Frontier"). I like me some deep, thought provoking sci-fi movies, but I just need a movie to be good first and foremost. That's all I ask. What are your thoughts? Don't you think that a lot of fans are just too stubborn to give New Trek a fair shot?
I will say that I do agree with you about the first movie, that it needed to jump-start the franchise, and a more traditional scifi action/adventure movie was probably the right way to get people hooked into caring about Trek again. I hardly think the first Star Trek movie was a masterpiece, but I have no problems there.
It may shock you to learn I did not care for Star Trek Into Darkness. But rather than go through my spiel again, let me answer whether I think fans are too stubborn: No. Honestly, I heard some bitching from hardcore trek fans about Abrams and Paramount rebooting the Trek universe, but a lot of them quieted down when we figured out nu-Trek was an alternate universe, thus leaving all the original Trek shows and movies validated. Honestly, I don't think many Trek fans dislike the new cast, the new Enterprise, the better effects, or anything like that, Sure, a few people are going in there determined to hate anything not set in the original canon, but I think most Trek fans are actually going in with an open mind, or even a desire to like these movies. And then it's the movies themselves that give them reasons to hate them.
You mention that you prefer character development and "Flash Gordon-style action." First of all, I'd argue that STID doesn't have Flash Gordon-style action, it has regular ridiculous summer movie action, e.g. Spock's infinitely long MMA match with Khan on top of the flying bus thing. And I don't know where you're getting character development there: STID recycles the first nu-Trek's "character development" — Kirk is brash but eventually learns to be a better leader! — followed by a degraded photocopy of Kirk and Spock's relationship from The Wrath of Khan, just with the roles switched. I saw no other character development.
Here's what I think is your money quote: "I like me some deep, thought provoking sci-fi movies, but I just need a movie to be good first and foremost." I would agree with that whole-heartedly. Now, while I prefer my Trek to be more science fiction-y and philosophical than a loud summer action flick, it really wouldn't matter if it was good. I can excuse any plot hole in the world if the movie is good enough to make me forget them, ignore them, or never see them. For me, at least, STID did not achieve that.
Got the Blues So Bad
What is the (in universe) deal with Silver/Bronze Age Batman's blue costume? I assume at one point that the blue was merely the industry's shortcut to printing highlights on black, but it almost seems it evolved into something more. There are comics where the black or gray is highlighted with white, but the mask and cape is still blue; Batman: The Brave and the Bold refer to it in universe as "gray and blue"; and for that matter Barbara Gordon's Batgirl outfit still featured a blue cape and cowl long after full colors were available for printing. What color are the people and criminals of Gotham seeing when they look at Batman/Batgirl?!
Batman and Batgirl have worn both colors, so I can't give you a single answer. It's true that in the early days, comic artists used blue to highlight blacks in order to give them depth, texture and make them more visually interesting — this is why Clark Kent/Superman's hair almost always had a touch of blue in it. In the '30s and '40s, I think you can safely assume Batman was wearing black and grey, which you can tell because of the primarily black shading on his cowl and trunks, and because traditionally black things like guns were also generally colored blue. Once the '50s rolled around, the blue shading more or less became genuinely blue by default.
Dear Mr. Postman,
Since you're io9's resident superhero genitalia effort, I had a question about the Hulk's genitalia. If you got him angry and sexually excited enough simultaneously, would his penis be the mightiest dick in the universe?
Theoretically? Yes. But trying to measure that particular phenomenon is probably a bit too difficult to actually accomplish. I think the minute you start angering and sexually arousing the Hulk, you'd going to get hate-fucked and explode into a fine red mist in mere seconds.
Lol & Order
May you always find kindling in the dead of winter. A particular web journalist from my present has mentioned Law and Order: SVU twice now, both times in regard to its extreme portrayals of violence and depredation. That got me thinking, what character from comics would prove to be the worst of the worst for that show? Who would it be to tear apart souls and sensibility like some ambassador of Azathoth?
P.S. Do you get any competition from carrier pigeon aficionados?
Well, L&O:SVU really likes its child abuse and murder, which isn't exactly kosher for most superhero comics (and which I'm totally fine with). But I think a more traditional murderous villain like the Joker would work well on the show — someone who murders the most people in the cruelest ways for no other reason than his own pleasure. That'd be a lot more entertaining to watch than Ice-T interrogating someone like Mr. Freeze. Unless you're talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze from Batman and Robin, in which case I'd pay any amount of money to make that episode happen.
P.S.: I tried to incorporate carrier pigeons into my mail routine — I figure anything that saves me time and effort is worth a try, right? Well, I trained a few pigeons to deliver mail for me and not a single one came back… because they'd all been eaten. It's the post-apocalypse, people. Nowadays sending someone a pigeon is the equivalent of mailing them an Omaha steak.
Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the email@example.com! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!