Why I have not seen The Last Jedi (and do not intend to)

For the past few days, I've been monitoring reactions to the newest Star Wars movie from a safe, spoiler-free distance. The reactions I've seen so far have ranged from ecstatically pleased, saying it's the best Star Wars move ever, damned by faint praise, and even straight-up disappointed. One thing in particular that I've noticed, however, is a particular attitude towards those who criticize the movie - more or less saying that the haters just "didn't get it", "need time", or "aren't real fans". I made a rare visit to my Twitter account this morning, and I happened to notice this tweet, which reads as follows:

Anyone claiming to be a "fan" of a film franchise feeling they're owed something, resulting in silly online rants/complaints/petitions: Join the biz. MAKE the film you want. Experience creating a project from concept to completion. Good luck. For now, shut it. #StarWars

To clarify a few points: this is not intended to be an attack in any way of the original tweeter (I don't know him personally but I'm a fan of his voice acting), but this particular tweet got me thinking. I understand the point he's trying to make - it's much easier to criticize someone else's work than to make your own. Believe me, I know that all too well. In addition to being an easy way to vent your own creative frustration, it can turn into an endless cycle as you criticize your own work rather than produce it. I also tend to agree that fans shouldn't feel entitled to have the movie exactly the way they want and that, ultimately, the creative decisions belong to those who actually do the creating (or who own the rights, as the case may be).

However, given that Star Wars was specifically cited here gives a certain indication: that Star Wars is somehow exempt from criticism. And this, if the intent, is where I disagree with the tweet and the surrounding attitudes. First of all, I want to ask - how many people would agree with this statement if he had tweeted it right after Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith? How about the animated Clone Wars movie? Granted, I do think that the same points in the previous paragraph should apply to the prequels as well as the new movies, and I think there is a lot of fan entitlement surrounding the prequels (and even the original trilogy). But if you agree with the tweet in relation to TLJ but not other movies, then perhaps we need to take a step back and think a little deeper about the implications.

The fact is, I am one of the fans who didn't care for The Force Awakens. I liked Rogue One slightly better, but basically only for the second half of the movie. When both movies came out, I had (and still have) my criticisms. Many of them I have in common with others - TFA is too similar to A New Hope, RO has too many characters. I have a few that are more specific to me - The First Order lacks any villains I find intimidating, charming, or otherwise compelling, and I'm convinced that RO will feel like a very dated movie in about 10-20 years (and not in a good way). I'll admit that some of these criticisms have come just from the fact that I feel I need to justify why, as a geek and someone who generally likes Star Wars, I don't like the new movies but I do like the prequels. There's a lot of social pressure in the geekdom, and I feel like I have to justify my opinions. (I could go into a whole 'nother rant about the irony of geeks trying to legislate each other's opinions and determining who's cool enough to be in the club of social outcasts, but I digress.)

This morning, I finally settled on a word: soulless. I think that the newest movies are technically good on most levels, but I find them soulless. I recognize that's a very loaded word, and gives a sort of objective connotation despite being subjective, but ultimately it is my biggest problem with the new turn the franchise has taken. I am not invested in the new characters, the new setting(s), or the new conflict  (in part, because they're not willing to diverge from the old ones). I watch the new movies and I don't see a story at all. We are three movies into the new franchise, and a new Star Wars movie every year already feels mundane. There is something very wrong when a new Star Wars movie feels mundane.

I know this opens up several other cans of worms - how can I call the new movies soulless and not the prequels, what was I expecting from a blockbuster franchise, etc. - and while I'm willing to discuss those, that's not the point of this post. What I will say is to reiterate that this is subjective - the new SW movies don't stir my heart or soul. I won't deny that there are others who enjoy them, and I think no less of those who do. Admittedly, I do ask that those who do enjoy them - especially those that do and don't enjoy the prequels - extend me and those like me the same courtesy even though we disagree. I already have a blog post about the frustration of having to defend unpopular opinions in the geekdom, and while I will do it (because I'm stubborn and kind of stupid), I owe you nothing, and I should not have to justify my own tastes to anyone.

But this is why I don't like the newest movies, and it's why I have not seen The Last Jedi, nor do I intend to see it until a friend or family member buys it and offers to let me see it. It's why I freely offer my criticisms of the previous movies. I desperately want to like Star Wars again, I want to see it grow artistically as well as be entertaining, I want it to win back my affections and have earned them. Maybe TLJ will actually do this, but so far, nothing I have seen or heard has convinced me that it's worth breaking my heart again. I've slid past hate and right into apathy towards the franchise. I suppose I really can't hate it. After all, no one hates Star Wars except the fans, and I'm not fully sure I qualify anymore.

TL;DR: In response to the original tweet, it's true, the fans don't own anything and the filmmakers aren't obliged to do anything that they don't want to. However, the reverse is true: they are not owed my time, energy, or money if they are unwilling to create a project I think is worth seeing. There is such a thing as bad criticism, there is such a thing as entitled fan, but there is no such thing as art that is exempt from criticism.

Why I Enjoyed Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Back in late 2013, I finally had a chance to see Man of Steel and see what all the fuss was about. I'd had a busy summer and hadn't managed to see it in theaters, though my brother had gone with my dad and told me that he had liked it. Finally they brought home the DVD, and we all watched it together, and... I was disappointed. Superman was such a weak character who only made decisions based on what his father (take your pick on which one), Lois Lane, or some other influential figure in his life told him to do. The movie wanted to explore the philosophy of how Superman should use his powers more than previous incarnations, but they left exploring that possibility alone after Jonathan Kent suggested that, maybe, just maybe, Clark should've let a school bus full of children die rather than reveal his identity to the world - I can see the point he was trying to make, but there's the fact that they left it there. Finally, Superman's decision at the very end of the movie was unbelievably grating to me, and I felt that if it had been Batman in the same situation, he would have found another solution - because they respect Batman as a character, but apparently not Superman. I haven't seen Man of Steel again.

When they later announced Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, I was frustrated on several levels. First of all, I hate the perception that because Batman and Superman have different approaches, they must be enemies - there are some great stories about them being different but also being very good friends. This was going to be the first time that Superman and Batman would co-star in a theatrically released movie, and it was explicitly more about answering "Who would win if Batman and Superman fought?" question above all else.* Wonder Woman was announced, and I could not believe that they were going to introduce her, Black Widow-style, in the middle of the Batman and Superman's movie, rather than in her own. The trailers started to come out, and it became abundantly clear that the dark tone, half-baked philosophizing, and extreme violence that I disliked in Man of Steel would continue here. Wonder Woman looked like little better than eye candy that the producers had thrown in because they knew that the fans would have a fit if they didn't. It looked like they were going to do everything I dreaded. But, I knew I would still see it in theaters because... it was still Batman and Superman. I did not appreciate seeing a movie because I was trapped in a sort of Skinner Box.

I went to see BvS in theaters, all right. I sat down, arms folded, scowling, expecting to hate this movie. (I'm not even being dramatic - that's literally what I did.) The beginning with an overdramatic retelling of Batman's origin story pretty much confirmed it for me.

Imagine my surprise, about an hour later, when I realized that I was actually enjoying this movie.

Every time I've tried to write this, I go into several digressions on one topic or another. Perhaps I'll go into more detail if there are questions about some aspect, but I'm going to try to summarize for the purposes of keeping this post a manageable length. Please bear in mind as well that, while I did enjoy this movie, I am not going to attempt to convince anyone else to like it if they did not. I liked this movie, but it is not the best Batman or Superman movie I've ever seen. It's not the best one that includes both characters. It's not even the best movie I've seen where Batman and Superman meet for the first time (YES I'm absolutely counting the animated ones here). But since I have such an unpopular opinion, I feel like I can't admit to this fact without feeling forced to defend it. I have a terrible time doing that verbally and my posts elsewhere tend to get inconsiderately long and ramble-y, so I'm going to try to explain myself in here.

(From here on out, there be spoilers for not only this movie, but also mild ones for several Marvel movies.)

I suspect that, ultimately, why I liked this movie more than others did was that it's one of the few that wanted to really explore what reality would be like in a world where superheroes exist. The superpowers and concepts were not a means to an end - the core of the movie is "What happens when there is alien life on Earth so much powerful than humanity can hope to best? Can we trust it?" Yes, the movie absolutely fails to execute those ideas on several occasions, and instead of exploring they idea, they navel-gaze until the movie comes to a grinding halt, without even giving a satisfying answer to the question. But the movie was still ultimately driven by what is life like in this world - and how would these characters behave?

It also wasn't afraid of having such "silly" concepts as a Batman who doesn't need to be "realistic" (*side-eyes The Dark Knight and the scene "justifying" why Batman can turn his head in all his armor*), an immortal warrior woman who has magic armor and a lasso, and a time-traveler who tries to warn Batman of some future threat, who is only justified within the movie for those who are familiar with The Flash. Not one of these are introduced to the audience with a wink and a joke. The closest it comes is when Batman and Superman see Wonder Woman for the first time and have their "Is she with you?" "I thought she was with you." But to me, that is a completely different league (no pun intended) than breezing past Scarlet Witch by describing her as "she's weird" or stopping just shy of overtly laughing at the name "Ant-Man". It's not at all a knock on Wonder Woman's inherent weirdness - it's more that neither of them were prepared for her. This is a world where these things just are, they don't have to be justified beyond the fact that you're watching a superhero movie.

Speaking of Wonder Woman, she was one of the things I loved about this movie. I loved her introduction as charming, mysterious, and her own agent that no one in the movie quite knew about or what to do with. Her motivations, and the fact that even Batman didn't know who she was, were intriguing. Wonder Woman also is the one who was given every opportunity to let Batman and Superman handle Doomsday, to continue on her way and on her own mission. Instead, she didn't think twice about revealing her existence to the world and risking her life to stand up against him. Honestly, my biggest exposure to Wonder Woman outside of this movie was the Justice League TV show (and follow-up series Justice League Unlimited), where she was my least favorite Leaguer. I've had classic Wonder Woman explained to me and I've loved that concept, but the closest I'd come to actually seeing that before this movie was her brief appearance in Young Justice.

When it was announced that Wonder Woman would be in this movie, I thought for sure that they'd never have the time (or skill) to give me an example of how that ideal Wonder Woman I desperately wanted to see. I was dead wrong, and I'm very glad of it. Not only that, it would have been a travesty to leave her out. This movie founds the Justice League, even if it that doesn't actually form for another few movies, and it would have been a mistake to do so without having the complete DC Trinity there for the first battle. This movie completely finally made me forget about her pathetic characterization in the TV show and sold me on her own movie. I'm beyond happy (and feeling quite vindicated) that her movie was very good and proved those of us who had hope right.

I am fully aware that almost all of these responses have had to do with my personal taste. I have a lot of background knowledge, experience, hopes, and passion for these characters. I am deeply invested in superheroes in general, I love speculative fiction - I am part of a very niche audience. And I suspect that might have a lot to do with why I like this movie and a lot of people do not. Zack Snyder is very clearly a devoted superhero fan himself, and while it's clear to me that he has a much different take on what makes a good superhero story than I do, I can't deny his passion. Perhaps it is just that these movies are very designed for the niche audience that not only enjoys superheroes, or even these characters, but does so the same way he does, which is why they're grating for those outside that audience. I will fully admit there are moments that feel a lot like fanfiction. But there are also so many moments that spark my imagination, that draw me into the world, that give me hope for future, more refined movies that will continue to explore what works, and hopefully leave behind what doesn't. (I am hoping beyond all hope that all the humor in the Justice League trailer is just a sign that either the marketing team is pushing for more of a Marvel movie type theme, or that the change will come around naturally - and not that they felt that because BvS failed, they needed to completely, abruptly change their strategy. I'd love a Justice League movie with a sense of humor - I just want it to maintain the sense of gravitas.)

This is why I will unabashedly say that I like this movie while fully admitting to its flaws. (The fact that I care about these characters means I utterly loathe Lex Luthor in this movie - sane Lex Luthor is an infinitely more interesting character than "wannabe Joker" - and I hate that Superman never comes across as a hero because he never makes his own choices.) I will never try to convince anyone else to like this movie with me - if the movie did not work for you, then it is a failure on the movie's part. I am not asking public opinion to change. I am asking that you respect my opinion on this movie and don't try to "correct" me with Martha jokes. I'm asking for the opportunity to have this opinion without having to defend having it.

Now is probably a bad time to admit that I like the Star Wars prequels too, huh?



*Skip this paragraph if you're not interested in my ran about the "Who would win in a fight?" question. For the record, I think it's inherently silly. "Who would win in a fight" is always going to be determined by not just each of the characters and their abilities, but the context of the fight. Is one of them fighting to protect a loved one? Does one of them just want to escape and the other wants to capture/kill them? How does the setting/environment affect the scenario? What kind of prep time did they each have? Captain America's fight at the end of The Winter Soldier gives a great example of how brutal he is willing to be when the situation demands it, but you can't use that as baseline for how he would behave in another battle without the same stakes as he had in that movie. A match divorced from context, set in a vacuum for the sole purpose of determining who is stronger, will never capture truly capture either character - even characters in fighting games tend to have the context of some kind of tournament they want to win. Also, quite frankly, it will also depend on the needs of the writer, in all contexts except a Death Battle. Always. Period. It's why a fight between Superman and Darkseid still has any potential to be interesting, even though (by this logic) they've fought before so we should "know" who would win in a fight.

Marvel's Avengers Assemble

After the sting of Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes's cancellation has finally numbed, I decided to try watching through Marvel's Avengers Assemble season 1, since it was available on Netflix. I watched the first two episodes shortly after they came out, and... I still have the Facebook post where I ranted about it. Suffice it to say, it was no replacement for A:EMH, between choppy and ridiculously fast-paced editing to the slim plot to the terrible dialogue and movie pandering. As such, I couldn't work up the desire to finish watching the series... until earlier this week. I have to say, the show is much more enjoyable if you go into it knowing full well what it's going to be like. So, let's give an idea of what it's like.

But, first of all, I have to say:  really Marvel? Did you really have to stick your name in there? 

Anyways, this show probably is one that you'll really enjoy if, like me, a) you enjoy watching superhero cartoons made/"made" for 12-year-old boys, or b) you really enjoy the Avengers. However, if either of those are true, it is a pretty fun ride... if at times a bit bumpy. You will have to sit through some parts, ranging from cheesy to goofy to obnoxious, on your way to some really awesome moments. The dialogue is generally pretty bad, but there are a few exceptions, and they're pretty good ones. Basically, expect a high-action romp, which most of the time you'll be riffing on, but it does occasionally actually give something awesome.

You can definitely tell it's a Man of Action show - same cheesy humor, lots and lots of action (huge shocker), the characters tend to be exceptionally cocky... and they do not dial down on the awesome. They're not afraid of going over the top, which they do sometimes - but when it works, it works. They don't always craft the most intricate stories or character moments, but they certainly know what's exciting and fun, and occasionally they can make you really feel for the character - even if it's mainly in that "HECK YEAH THAT'S AWESOME" kind of way. I do think Man of Action is much better suited to a single main character (and, frankly, a male one) with supporting characters, like on Ben 10 and Generator Rex, than they are with teams. Ultimate Spider-Man only really worked when the episode was about Spider-Man and not his annoying teammates, and Big Hero 6 (while they weren't involved in the movie, they made the characters) focused almost exclusively on Hiro and Baymax. Still, I have to admit that them having so many characters running meant they generally didn't have time for some of those teen/team drama B-plots that cropped up in Ben 10 and Generator Rex.

You can also definitely tell that Jeph Loeb and Joe Quesada had their hands on this. Just like in Ultimate Spider-Man, LEGO Marvel Super Heroes (where Man of Action was not involved so you can't blame them), and Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel (HOW COULD THEY DO THAT TO PHINEAS AND FERB?!), the jokes consist mainly of two things: really dumb kids' humor and movie pandering. Considering that the new heads of Marvel Animation have more or less said they don't think smarter writing and continuity appeals to kids, it's not surprising that most everything they're involved with comes off as childish (which is why I'm very grateful the only credits they had on Big Hero 6 were "Special thanks"). I'm one of the few who didn't mind Ultimate Spider-Man's 4th-wall cutaways in general, I just didn't like that they were mainly used to explain things to the viewers that apparently couldn't figure it out on their own - I'm glad that that, at least, wasn't included in Avengers Assemble. They did, of course, decide to stick strictly to their "new Marvel cast", such as Adrian Pasdar as Iron Man - because, apparently, no one else can play him. *Sigh*

Speaking of the cast, Adrian Pasdar is the only member of the main cast that really bothered me, and even he grew on me eventually - even if he just sounds a little too slimy to be taken seriously as a hero (think Tony's businessman personality taken to "used car salesman" levels, that's what he sounds like). Travis Willingham's Thor was a bit too over-the-top, reminding me too much of the portrayal on Super Hero Squad (where everything was intentionally cartoony and silly), but he had some better episodes which convinced me he can pull it off. As I've said, Roger Craig Smith is a worthy Captain America in his own right, and now he has the awesome distinction of being both Captain America and Batman (Arkham Origins). Troy Baker is pretty awesome as Hawkeye, it's too bad the writing doesn't let him show it off enough, though. And is there any question of bringing back Fred Tatasciore as the Hulk?! Laura Bailey didn't get much dialogue as Black Widow, but I did like what I heard. And, I have to say, I like Bumper Robinson as Falcon better than Lance Reddick from A:EMH or Alimi Ballard from Super Hero Squad - he's got he right mix of young and uncertain, but can also bring in the confidence and maturity when needed. It's going to be weird if they ever bring War Machine into this, though, because I still associate animated War Machine with his voice.

Generally, the casting held up pretty well for guest and recurring characters as well. I'm not the biggest fan of Liam O'Brien's Red Skull voice (not deep or on its own imposing enough for me), but I am not knocking his acting - he can make the most even out of some of the mediocre dialogue he's given. Corey Burton, as always, is undeniably terrifying with his Dracula voice - of all the villains on the show, he's the one that scared me the most, and his solo episode was the one that convinced me that this show had potential, in part because of his performance (the episode was also just the first really focused one). Brian Bloom makes a glorious return to the franchise as Hyperion - it's hilarious to have ex-Captain America arguing ethics with Captain America. His voice isn't different enough from his Cap for me not to actually *hear* Captain America arguing with Captain America, but nevertheless he does a good job of twisting that voice into a deranged performance. Charlie Adler makes for an actually scary MODOK, which frankly kind of shocks me - even in A:EMH I could never take him seriously. Dwight Schultz is a fun Attuma, even if I'm constantly thinking of Doctor Animo from Ben 10, though he is considerably more impressive as Attuma. Oh, and Maurice LaMarche as Doctor Doom.... Perfect. Casting. He pulls off "Lawful Evil dictator, self-declared benevolent ruler" flawlessly. The only casting I remember disliking was when the Guardians of the Galaxy showed up - granted, none of them had enough dialogue to really showcase what they were capable of, but... yeah, none of their voices worked for me, except maybe Drax. Rocket, especially, just did not really fit him; I found it hard to listen to. Granted, that whole episode drove me crazy, so maybe I would've liked them better with better material.

Oh, and thinking of this version of Groot reminds me... I really need to talk about the animation. At first glance, you might think that this animation is better than A:EMH - the style is certainly more realistic. And... that's kind of the problem. It doesn't always move very well, and often times borders on the Uncanny Valley, and in some of the early episodes, you could tell when they were using editing tricks and the like to try to hide some of the animation "glitches", so to speak. When it does move well, it looks very nice - but then you get things like Groot

DEAR LORD WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, CHARACTER DESIGNERS?! No wonder he spends all of his non-fighting time as a twig!!!

As for the writing, I think I've already touched on that - the dialogue tends to be cheesy, if not out-right bad. I think Hawkeye suffers from this the most - they want to make him the "funny" character, so if he gets a half-way funny line out, he has to remind the audience "This is a joke! I'm funny!" *Sigh* Black Widow's purpose is, apparently, to show up, show the boys how smart she is by delivering one insightful piece of dialogue, then disappearing from the rest of the episode. I'm not kidding - provided she doesn't just not appear in the episode without explanation (the only Avenger for whom this is true IIRC), she tends to have no more than 5 lines total and occasionally shows up in fight scenes. That's it, unless the episode focuses on her (and even when it does, she shares the spotlight with someone else, namely Hulk or Hawkeye). The plots do tend to be predictable right from the get-go, but the pacing is fast enough that at least, generally, you don't feel like you're dragging through it - if the plot's too boring, you can watch the action. ;) Basically, you want to keep your eye out for the better episodes, typically in the latter half of the season. Virtually any episode with Doctor Doom is worth watching, though my favorite is The Ambassador. The best written villain on the show spends most of it with my favorite character, Captain America - um, heck yeah. For an earlier and less spoiler-y episode, there's the aforementioned Dracula debut in Blood Feud, which was episode 5 - and note, I have a 5-episode rule before I'm willing to declare a show bad without finishing it, because in my experience, good shows with a slow start show potential by then. Well, Blood Feud did it for this show - again, admittedly, the emphasis on Captain America and Corey Burton's ominous performances did a lot to help me enjoy it. Captain America vs. Dracula, c'mon people!

To recap, Avengers Assemble has its share of flaws - a lot of them. The characterization is often childish, the dialogue is generally wince-inducing (with a few incredible exceptions), and I think the executives actually made it their mission to make it pander to kids as much as possible. But let's put it this way: I'd watch it again. A lot of Man of Action's greatest qualities are kind of muted by Joe Quesada and Jeph Loeb's policies, but at least you do see the same kind of fun that they're good at. Of the new shows that have come out, Marvel Avengers Assemble is easily my favorite - Ultimate Spider-Man had a couple of good scenes but was overall painful to watch, and I can't even bring myself to watch Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. I still haven't seen season 2, but I've heard it gets better - so, we'll have to see how that is when I get there.

Ben 10

If you know much about the shows currently on Cartoon Network (or the current cartoon world in general, probably), you've probably heard of Ben 10. If not... fair warning, you'll probably find this post pretty boring. But, just in case, here's the premise: the story is about a kid named Ben Tennyson who, when he's 10 years old, finds a watch-like device--which literally latches onto him and won't let go. This device turns out to have the ability to turn him into (originally) 10 different forms (yes, you'll notice a number motif going on here). Of course, he uses these forms to alternately be a superhero--or cause mischief. After a while, he finds out that the device is called the Omnitrix, of alien origin with the DNA of thousands of aliens inside, and it's designed to temporarily turn the wearer into any of those aliens of his choice. Not always the most consistent thing; sometimes it gives him the wrong alien form, or times out at the most inconvenient moment. Oh, incidentally, it's considered to be one of the most powerful weapons in the galaxy, and there's at least one warlord who will do anything to get it and knows where it is. Bearer beware. Of course he has sidekicks (his grandpa who seems to know an awful lot about aliens, and a variably annoying or helpful 10-year-old cousin), as well as other recurring characters... usually villains.

The show has had three spin-offs (Alien Force, Ultimate Alien, and a third one that they're working on now), three movies (one animated, two live action), and I don't know how many video games. They all have approximately the same premise, use the same characters, and assume a lot of the same events. That being said, if you try to follow the continuity between all of these incarnations... yeah, you're going to end up with a headache. (As it is, I haven't even seen the live-action movies and I can still safely say that.) And... the spin-offs are going to make up a good portion of the second half of this post, and by this point, any non-viewers will probably be completely lost. Fair warning. :P

Ben 10: The Original Series

When I say this, bear in mind that I seem to have a much higher tolerance for childish and "kiddie fare" writing than most, but: I actually kind of liked Ben 10. (I should hope so; I watched through the series twice. Though the second time was more to remind myself of what happened, because I was starting Alien Force.) Not all the time, mind you; season 1 was full of a lot of uninteresting episodes, two of the three main characters were irritating (the title character and his cousin of the same age), and yes, you were stuck with just them for a long time. I'm kind of surprised that I kept watching, but, at the same time, there were some unusual things that caught my attention. First of all, even though I originally saw the episodes out of order, I could tell that there was some continuity with them--and at this point (it was when the show was still on the air), that was kind of hard to find for me. (At least, with shows that weren't already cancelled.) Plus, it did some things I wasn't used to--like, the hero cared very little about protecting his identity (most of the time), not to mention he Jumped At The Call* rather than spend the first episode whining about it. So, I gave it a shot.

*Yes, I'm going to use tropes from TVTropes.org occasionally. Fair warning, the content can be pretty much up to R-rated and is usually around PG/PG-13. Oh yeah, and it's extremely addicting and may ruin your view of some shows and movies. :P

Overall, the flaws I mentioned don't really change. The hero stays a fairly self-centered brat for most of the series, unless someone's life is on the line--then he can be either heroic, or kind of scary when you threaten his family. The... not-so-incredible animation style stays the same until the spin-offs, and there are still some clunkers in later seasons. But the show is still really good at some points. For one thing, there are some good villains--like Vilgax, the "warlord" I mentioned from the premise. He falls prey to some of the typical villain clichés (for example, he never bothers to kill the weak human child who bears his Omnitrix, and remove it from his body), but that doesn't stop him from being downright terrifying. (Perspective: true, he never tries to kill Ben before getting the Omnitrix, but he has tried to just chop his whole arm off to get it.) Basically, the writers have to find ways of getting him off Earth for a while, because otherwise there's no explanation for how he hasn't already won.

Another thing to note: Ben and Gwen are both frequently irritating, fight for no reason, etc. But, both of them (Ben especially) can be very noble when called to be. Ben has more than once been willing to sacrifice himself and/or his Omnitrix (despite the dangers, he still loves that thing) for his family. And both of them mature a bit in later seasons. Besides, Grandpa Max makes up for them--sometimes.

Plus, like I said, they maintain continuity. It does fall prey to some issues at times (some minor retcons, characters knowing names that they really shouldn't), and sometimes they maintain continuity but they do things that are annoying (more on that later, in spoilers), but at least trying is enough to earn points in my book. For example, there was a reveal at the end of season 1/beginning of season 2 which they had clearly started planting seeds for from the beginning. It's not generally the kind of continuity that they clearly planned out in advance, but they at least remember--bringing back old villains in new (usually more interesting) ways, and building on things that happened. In my mind, this is the bare minimum that any show should do--sadly, it's been kind of rare for me.

I think the reason why I liked the original show so much, though, is kind of two-fold. First of all, it's just fun. This show is all about the adventures, and generally, not so much of the drama. As in, for example, Ben doesn't have a love interest he's chasing the whole series who dominates far too much screentime, etc. Of course there are emotional, dramatic moments too--but the series tends to avoid getting bogged down too much by it. The other thing, I touched on before: there are a lot of things in this show that were kind of unique. Okay, I shouldn't say unique, but not stuff I see very often anymore. I'm having a hard time thinking of examples without giving spoilers away....

(Note: this is still specifically about the first series. More on the others later.)

Spoiler warning: The next 5 paragraphs contain spoilers for season 2 onward. After that, I move on to the next two series.

I think one of my favorite plot twists came in late season 2. I've already talked about how Ben turns into the 10 different alien forms, right? Well... what happens when one of those forms develops a personality of his own? And worse, one that has his own plans? Well... that pretty much happened. ;) And, to be honest, it's one of the things that got me to watch the show more consistently.

Long story short, Ben liked to name all his alien forms--one of them was a form he called Ghostfreak. Because he could turn invisible and phase through walls, not to mention could look kind of freakish. (Yes, Ben is so creative.) As it turns out, the type of alien Ghostfreak is can live on, even in just a few strands of DNA--complete with his own personality. And, after a while, Ghostfreak decided that he wanted out of the Omnitrix and this annoying human child who used his form. However, he discovered that without the Omnitrix and Ben, his body would vaporize in sunlight. So, he needed a human body to possess to avoid this problem--and worse, he decided that he didn't mind the Omnitrix, just as long as he controlled it. Made for great Halloween episode material, anyways.

So, the reasons why I liked this arc: one, it was a twist. Having heroes with various forms isn't all that unusual in my opinion, and having powers with dark sides isn't all that unique either. However, this is the first time I've seen it happen where one of those forms/powers actually developed a separate personality (not to mention body, eventually), and turned evil. Very clever use of the fact that these aren't just powers of Ben's, they're transformations into other aliens--makes you wonder about what those other aliens are like.

Plus Ghostfreak was kind of an interesting character. Okay, yeah, so the whole "possessing a human body to stay alive and be evil" thing isn't new. But, it makes you wonder about what he was like before this happened. First of all, did the alien that donated the DNA do so voluntarily? It seems like common knowledge (among that species, anyways) that their DNA can live on. So, did he volunteer--or was it taken from him? (If you count it as canon, some episodes of the spin-offs strongly indicate... nope.) And if he did volunteer in the first place, did he know another personality would emerge? Did he plan on it, and planned to control the Omnitrix eventually? Or, let's say the original guy was a perfectly nice guy, did this out of the goodness of his heart. Does Ghostfreak have the original's personality, or was he "born" with his own? Did he just basically go nuts trapped inside a device?

Sadly, the show never answered these questions--I would have really liked for them to have met Ghostfreak's DNA donor eventually. C'est la vie, I suppose.

Ben 10: Alien Force and Ben 10: Ultimate Alien

So, the last episode of the original series aired April 15th, 2008, according to TV.com. Three days later, on April 18th, Ben 10: Alien Force aired its first episode. And frankly, I'm not entirely sure how they could've made the two shows more different.

Alien Force begins 5 years after the original series ended, when Ben and Gwen are both 15. Both have matured a lot, actually seem to enjoy each others' company, and seem to have settled into... mostly normal lives. Ben has become a tennis champion (or is gearing up to be one; it's been a while since I watched the first episode), and Gwen has advanced in her studies--both magical and academic. For some reason, Ben, somewhere in the 5 year time-jump, decided to take off the Omnitrix, and hasn't had any reason to put it back on. That is, until Grandpa Max disappears, and he decides to find him. (I'm not saying "for some reason" to preserve the mystery; they never tell you. Nothing in this 5-year time-skip is so much as mentioned ever again.)

If you've never seen either/any of these shows, you'll probably not be interested in me nitpicking about all the details they changed; if you've already seen it, then you probably already know. And I fully admit that I'm a purist, so changing things tends to raise my ire. So, I'll sum it up this way: the basic premise, there's a human kid who has a powerful device that turns him into aliens, is the same. The characters are the same, albeit some changes (and bizarre changes, like a primary villain, who was a sociopathic 11-year-old, suddenly becoming Ben's best friend...?). And it's still an action-adventure semi-superhero show, which takes full advantage of the fact that this universe has aliens. Beyond that, nothing is sacred. Nothing. Honestly, I think the writers may have better off just starting over from scratch....

I guess the important question is, do the changes improve the show? At the very least, does it stand alone as it's own show? I've been far from subtle with my own opinion on the subject, so you've probably guessed: no, I don't really think so. The thing is, the reason why I liked the original show was how unique its universe was, compared to some of the other things I watch. Quite a few of the changes they made to the show? They got rid of those original elements, and usually retconned them into clichés. It's hard to describe without a) going into great detail and b) explaining why I have a problem with the results, but trust me--if you want me to tell you about it, I sure will!!

I should say, there were a couple of improvements I liked. As I mentioned earlier, both Ben and Gwen matured--a lot. It was just a relief to see them getting along and acting at least somewhat sensible. (Sadly, in season 3, they decided that Ben was too "perfect", and he turned into a 10-year-old in a 15-year-old's body. And Gwen turned into the stereotypical "I must be smarter in all ways than male characters, and flaunt it" female character. Granted, she's been that all along, but it was exaggerated.) Also, the show focused a bit more on the continuity, and while I don't believe an overarching plot is necessary to make a good show, this show certainly did better with one. And there were some genuinely touching moments between the characters, mostly while Mature Ben was still around. There was one episode in particular, between Ben and one of the villains, actually--I'll say no more, but let's just say it gave me the momentum to keep watching the show.

(Oh, and one more thing--Professor Paradox. I haven't seen much of Doctor Who, but I understand Paradox is an homage to him. And he's just kind of awesome; he instantly makes any episode better. Sadly, I don't think he showed up once after season 1 of Ultimate Alien.)

Okay, but as a show on its own! How does it stand? (Wow, I really went on a tangent there.) What I was trying to say was that the original show was original in its own way. Alien Force, on the other hand, tended to be a very generic superhero show; for the most part, if you watch any cartoons/animated series, you've seen most of these elements before. Frankly, frequently done better. Despite ostensibly being an action-adventure show, the action isn't usually very interesting; usually, it has to be resolved by Ben figuring out which alien to use to smash what. Okay, oversimplifying, but you know what I mean; there are three characters, and Gwen and Kevin never seem to be allowed to do more than defend themselves and occasionally watch Ben's back. And, characters... ehhhh. Granted, well-rounded characters weren't exactly a strong point of the original series. But this show tries to take itself a lot more seriously, so the lack of character development tends to stand out a bit more.

Wrapping Up

So, this last part has basically been a long rant about how inferior Alien Force and Ultimate Alien are compared to the original series. I just want to add one more thing: the first two seasons of Alien Force, overall, were executed much better than other points. The second half of season 1 of Ultimate Alien was also pretty good, and gave me hope that the show was getting back into the swing of things. Its finale... ehhhh.... Long story short, if you're interested in this show, it might be best to start with the original. Yes, it's definitely more geared for a younger audience than the later shows, but that actually makes it easier to watch. For one thing, the show gets to more authentically fun and unique, since it doesn't try so hard. When those mature and sophisticated moments come, they're a surprise and a treat. The spinoffs, on the other hand, do the opposite: they try so hard to be mature and darker, but in doing so they just replicate most other superhero shows that do it that way. They're not really fun because that's too "kiddish", but they're not deep or interesting because they don't try anything new. Sometimes, they catch you by surprise; usually, the show is just rather mediocre, and sometimes I find my head hitting the desk.

For anyone who has seen the original Ben 10 and enjoyed it, I do have a recommendation for you: instead of continuing with Alien Force or Ultimate Alien, try Generator Rex. It's also for an older audience, with much more emphasis on character development, continuity, etc.--while maintaining a sense of fun, and doing things in ways I didn't see coming. I'll probably do a separate review on it, but long story short, it's more in line with the original series, but I liked it better. (Even though Rex is basically just Ben slightly older, with different powers, and with a darker history and world.)

Just For Girls?

So far in this blog, I've reviewed two... different kinds of shows. Ironically, both air on the Hub, and both are reboots of shows based on Hasbro toy lines--and I think both have done a great job. One is Transformers: Prime, the other is My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I don't think you could get two shows more absolutely on opposite sides of "Boy-oriented" versus "Girl-oriented", but the fact is that I do love them both, albeit for entirely different reasons. If you know much about the latter show, you might know that it has garnered a surprising number of adult MALE fans, which has raised all kind of confusion (and sometimes backlash) on the internet--even though it's not really weird anymore that there are so many female fans of, say, superheroes, Avatar: The Last Airbender, things like that.

I'm not going to get into it much, but I'm pretty sure everyone's familiar with the stereotypes. Stuff made for boys, when written intelligently, isn't really just for boys because anyone can find it interesting. Girly stuff, however, is strictly for girls because it involves things only they'd care about; it's usually done pretty badly, and there's no reason for a boy to like that kind of stuff. But, My Little Pony is pretty unabashedly girly--so, according to this line of thought, how is it possible that boys could find it interesting?

The thing is, the reason why I love this show is that it's basically the show I've been looking for since I was 8 and old enough to realize a lot of stuff marketed at "me" wasn't very good. But I'd still watch it, but there was something about the "girly" stuff that I really liked--it'd just always fall flat on its face before the end of the movie. And, after about 13 years, I think I've figured it out. The thing that attracts girls (me, at least) isn't the overabundance of pink, princess, and same basic fairytale repeated over and over--it's, for lack of a better word, the intrigue.

I'm really not satisfied with that word, so let me try to describe what I mean. Since fairy tales (I'm assuming the more modern, "Disneyfied" versions here) are stereotypically girly, let's look at that. Snow White is about a queen who wants to be the "fairest in the land", first resorting to murder to get it--later a curse. The Little Mermaid is about a girl who makes a deal with a witch to get what she wants (and, according to Disney, the witch is manipulating this situation to get revenge and the crown). Beauty and the Beast is about a girl who makes a great sacrifice to save her father, and later is rewarded by finding true love.

Basically, something I see a lot of in fairy tales is an emphasis on the scheming and sacrifices, the deals, enchantments and curses--the extents people (villains and princesses alike) go to, to get whatever it is they want. Of course, non-girly stuff does this too--it's the main part of spy movies, other than the cool gadgets and blowing stuff up, which is hardly girly. (Of course, without the enchantments and curses there. ;) ) But that tends to be more about the spies doing their best to come out on top--in a fairy tale, the more powerful the curse, the greater the sacrifice, the more emphasis it gets (and the more interesting it is). Maybe that's why stories about high school drama are (according to Hollywood, anyways) so popular among girls--it's still that kind of scheming, though the reason why I don't like it so much is it tends to be much more petty, less about the sacrifice and more about how all the girls are brats....

So, basically, to sum up: little girls get character-driven schemes and intrigue. Little boys get powerful heroes, action, and stuff that's just cool. Girls tend to get the kind of magic that comes with a price (or simply can't be done likely), boys tend to get magic that can be used as a superpower. And, when done right, both are interesting in their own ways!! The main problem seems to be that the media is more likely to see the potential in boys' material and started treating it maturely, and expanding its realm; with girls', they find a formula they think works, spruce it up with more pink, and assume little girls will buy it for that. Worse, they'll take the material that works for boys, make all the main characters girls, and then add the petty kind of intrigue that I've never enjoyed--and expect it not to seem like a knock-off of both kinds of media. At least, how I see it.

Transformers: Prime

I should start this out by admitting that I've never watched the original Transformers show. I've seen (and loved) all of Beast Wars, and seen (and not really liked) bits of Transformers: Cybertron and Animated. Never seen any of the movies, either. So... yeah, I've gotten that out there. I'm almost positive there are diehard fans who strongly disagree with me on this subject.

So, now that I've admitted to my semi-newbie status, let me say this: if you like sci-fi and are willing to accept giant talking, transforming robots, watch Transformers: Prime, because it is incredible. cardboardwalk from BehindTheVoiceActors.com described it really well: "With the cinematics of Bay, the mythology of the original, and the story telling of [B]east [W]ars, this show is awesome!" Really, for anyone familiar with these three adaptations, that its the nail right on the head. Even if you don't understand the comparison, give it a shot--like I said, I'd only actually seen one of those three when I started watching!

First of all, I want to add something cardboardwalk left out: the voice cast on this show is phenomenal. Obviously, Peter Cullen is an amazing Optimus Prime; the regal voice fits his great performance, assuring that even some of the (occasionally) corny dialogue doesn't bug you, not coming from him. And saying that Frank Welker plays Megatron amazingly almost goes without saying, since, well, it's the original Megatron, and it's just Frank Welker.

This is just the part that should satisfy the diehard Transformers fans--if you're a fan of voice actors in general, there's plenty to pick from! ;) There's Steve Blum as Starscream (I'm of the opinion that he can take any line of dialogue and make it awesome), Josh Keaton, Kevin Michael Richardson, Jeffery Combs, Daran Norris, Adam Baldwin and Gina Torres (both playing rather different roles than in Firefly ;))--these are the ones off the top of my head! And that's also just the names I recognized before I started watching. Sumalee Montano, for example, is a voice I hadn't heard before--but she's another example of the amazing casting decisions here.

The second thing I have to talk about is the animation. I know that CGI, in general, is a turn-off for a lot of people, so let me say this: barring the human models (which are sometimes a little disproportionate), the animation is absolutely beautiful--my brother and I watch the show together, and sometimes we forget that it's a TV show, not a movie. It's not just the models or transformations, etc.--it's how the show moves. The action is choreographed to not only give a greater intensity to the fights, but also keeping in mind that these are giant robots and trained warriors. (There's even a scene in the five-part series premiere that shows the fighting from the perspective of the human kids.) We've had plenty of "Wait, back up, I want to see that again" moments while watching this show!

But, relatively speaking, these are both pretty superficial things to talk about. So, here's the question: does the substance of the show hold up as well as its appearance?

The answer is--absolutely. The writing on this show is incredible, well-planned and character-driven. All the main characters, and even some of the villains are given time to shine with their own episodes or arcs. First season, admittedly, had quite a bit of filler--but that's mostly a warning for the people who don't like filler, because I like it (when it's done well). Also, all of the "filler" generally had some overall purpose, like character development or establishing a plot element. One thing that I think serves this show well is that there isn't, per se, a single overarching plot that they always tie into, aside from the premise of the show (which is, basically, the Autobots defending Earth, against the Decepticons--and other threats). Instead, it's a variety of potential plot developments, which intertwine or act alone as best fits the story. It gives them plenty of chances to go back to all of the villains and ideas they've left open on previous occasions!

Also, the characters are very well-done--for the most part. All of the Autobots have things about them that I like. The one that stands out the most, unsurprisingly, is Optimus Prime. I'm used to shows where the "leader" is either completely bland, or your stereotypical teenage hero--meaning rash, inexperienced, and generally not really fit to lead (the plot finds some way to keep him in charge). Not Optimus. He comes off as the writers intend: a wise leader, always putting his people above himself, and protective of this new planet he has adopted (so protective he's not willing to have human casualties, even from humans who attack him). The leaders of the Decepticons aren't far behind, either. Megatron is a calculating, menacing figure, whose only real failing (as a villain) is that he lets certain people live for too long. While he's not the "come up with a master plan that takes all season to unfold" type of villain, he's both good at making plans, and thinking on his feet (just look at the season 2 premiere--actually, don't, not until you've watched first season). To top it all off, sometimes, you can almost feel for him. He's not evil for evil's sake, he just leads a group who are darker and more ruthless than the Autobots--and occasionally, it does seem like he almost misses having Optimus as a comrade. And, of course, there's Starscream. Given how many people he has killed or tried to kill, and how many messes he gets himself into, you really shouldn't feel bad for the guy--but you still do.  Then again, you never really know when he's truly helpless--or he's feigning it, and he's actually playing you like a violin. (Incidentally, it can be both at the same time.)

I can't talk about the characters without mentioning the show's one major failing. Her name is Miko. Okay, so the human characters aren't all that interesting compared to the Autobots, for the most part. I should clarify, the three main characters all made more interesting (or tolerable) through their relationship with one of the Autobots, though Jack (the oldest/most mature human) and Arcee's clearly take the cake here. The primary problem with that statement, though, is that Miko's relationship with "her" Autobot, Bulkhead, brings out the best in him--and the worst in her. Describing how much I dislike Miko should probably be reserved for a more in-depth look at the show, but suffice it to say she's insanely selfish, to the point where she's just obnoxious. (And she all-but manipulates Bulkhead to her own ends, and when he needs support? She drops him like a hot potato.) Basically, if you watch this show--do your best to ignore her and focus more on other characters. She does get much better in Season 2--primarily because she has such little screentime.

I'm sure there's more I can say, but for now, I'm going to conclude with the number one thing that makes this show kind of unique--and enjoyable!--for me and my brother. The show spends its time developing the fact that this is a war between various factions, some more heroic than the others, mostly concerning these giant aliens. That actually makes it sound terrible, but hear me out. For one thing, the writers are good about remembering that the Autobots and Decepticons are aliens and ancient--they have long, long histories with each other, etc. They also, Autobots and Decepticons alike, miss their homeworld, their own culture, and fighting on a more open battlefield. This is especially well-developed for Optimus and Megatron, partly because some of this comes off of how they play off each other.

But I'm also referring to the lack of magical MacGuffins*, "ultimate transformations", etc. in the show. Yes, there are artifacts of great power**, a valuable resource (Energon) that both sides need to get their hands on, stuff like that. There's even some amount of a sort of mysticism (though I wouldn't put it in terms of outright magic). But, that's now the writers resolve problems or drive the plot. The plot is driven through tactical decisions, (relatively) down-to-earth and beautifully choreographed battles (no "STARE AT THE EPIC DEUS EX MACHINA" moments here). Again, it feels like a war between factions--not a backdrop invented to give the characters some reason for being here and fighting something every episode. This also contributes to the show's ability to pick up and develop plot threads when needed. The show isn't an overarching mystery that the characters need to solve, or even one specific goal; situations change, plans fall apart, all parties have to react. And that just makes it a treat to watch.

*Yeah, so I read TV Tropes--a lot. Fair warning if you follow any links--TV Tropes can be very addicting, and isn't always G-rated.

**NOTE: Since writing this post in the first place, I've seen more of season 2. They've started involving more of the "mystical objects", but my problem with mystical artifacts is when their power is either undefined, or so ridiculously over-the-top that basically, the series has to come to a standstill as a result. These tend to be treated like powerful weapons, whose effects are defined, and their threat level is both determined by those effects and the intelligence of their user. They are not powerful just because.

So, I've basically rambled on for forever about all this. Long story short: if you're looking for smart writing, beautiful animation, and a great cast of characters, try out Transformers: Prime. Again, I can't really tell you if a die-hard Transformers fan will like this show, but I was a casual-at-best fan who loved it. I recommending starting with the pilot 5-parter, since that (for once!) is a fair indicator of the show's overall quality (aside from some slightly disjointed animation, which improves as the season goes on). Peter Cullen's voice alone will probably hypnotize you into watching the rest of the show. ;)

The Council of the Ancients

Long ago, the world lived in peace and harmony, protected by the powerful magic of the Council of the Ancients. But this was all threatened when the Ancient Evil attacked, threatening to control the world and twist it to his evil whim. Only through the combined power of the Council were they able to defeat him, and lock him in a parallel dimension, taking the only key to this world and dividing it into three pieces....

...so, how many books, movies, TV shows, and/or video games did I just summarize? The details may change, but this is a cliché that I have seen an awful lot of. And, quite frankly, it irks me. Not just because it's an overused cliché, though that certainly helps. The main reason why I'm sick of it is it's, usually, just lazy writing. Worse, sometimes it recognizes that it is used in almost all forms of fantasy--so they can assume the audience is used to it, and they'll assume the intended significance, rather than the story earning it. *Sigh* (Hopefully, you'll see what I mean.)

So, first of all, I want to explain what exactly I'm talking about:

• The "Ancient" part. Virtually anything "Ancient" (civilization, magic, evil, etc.) is several times more powerful than anything modern. This more has to do when the writers make it ancient simply because "Ancient is better!"; if the timetable actually makes sense (like it takes place in our world, and is incorporated into our history), then this is not only acceptable, but sometimes very well-played.
• This is also directed at the historical figures, who frequently formed some kind of group (often a "council") and established peace and order, hooray! I'm also tying this in with their "descendants" (the modern incarnation of the council or the like), who usually revere them and study their teachings carefully, and though they're never as powerful, they usually know quite a bit.
• And, of course, the Ancient Evil. Generally a powerful sorcerer who wants to take over the world, for kicks. I'm referring specifically to the ANCIENT ones, whose plans were thwarted and who has, for some reason or another, been prevented from endangering the world again. Usually, he's been locked away in some kind of prison, but he's still alive; RARELY, he's actually dead/incapacitated and someone has merely learned his tricks.
• For both of the above points: I'm also usually talking about when they're virtually demigods. Like, covering the world in darkness and turning its inhabitants into skeletons via one ritual, and then using the Power of Light to put it all back to right.

Yeah... in case you haven't guessed, this one's going to be a rant. ;) I also oversimplify a lot of times; I'm kind of basing the rant off of a compilation of all the worst examples of these clichés. Not all stories that indulge in this plot device are this bad... but I think there are at least a couple who use them all.

Okay, so the big one is kind of an obvious one, that can actually apply to ancient and modern heroes ('specially fantasy ones) alike: Why do they never, ever, ever just kill their Ancient Foe?! Okay, I know it's kind of bad taste to have a heroic character also be a killer--that kind of automatically takes him into anti-hero territory. However, in this case, I feel like there should be an exception. First of all, this guy usually is a mass murderer--if this isn't explicitly stated, then it's strongly implied. If he doesn't actually kill, then he comes close--turning people into his zombie army, etc. Basically, he has done terrible things--usually, "for the evulz!!!" And taking over the world and stuff. He's proven himself a threat and, frankly, justice demands that he pays for it.

Before anyone jumps in and says "But the heroes will be just like him if they do" and all that--that more applies when the hero kills because it's convenient and/or out of revenge. Also, the Ancient Foe usually is king of his own country/world/whatever; other than our heroes, there is no other system of justice he can face. This is why I'm applying it mostly to fantasy heroes; for superheroes or something like that, yeah, they need to deliver him to the authorities. After that, it's the city of Gotham that REALLY needs to stop sending Joker back to Arkham already.

Another big factor: most of the time, this Ancient Foe is immortal, and/or too powerful to throw in a normal dungeon. So, what do they do? Lock him in a timeless prison. ...Because that was a BRILLIANT idea. Now, if he wasn't immortal already, he's never going to die--he will ALWAYS be a threat looming over this world. Again, brilliant. Because these Ancient Wise Ones were too focused in a superficial idea of "good", now their Ancient Foe can be released any time in the future when they're not around to do anything about it. So, in order to not become "evil" themselves or whatever (read: not wanting to "dirty" their own hands), they're endangering generations to come. Great going. (Obviously, this does NOT apply to any Ancient Foes who are too powerful to actually be killed--in which case, there's really not much else they can do.)

(Also, think about it--it's a timeless prison. Every time you see the inside of these prisons, it's a void--no people, no food, rarely solid ground. And you trap him there for all time, provided he doesn't find a way out. How is this not more cruel than killing him outright?)

And... that was only issue #1 I have with this cliché, but they should be shorter from here on out. ;) So, onto issue #2: why is "ancient" always better? The Ancient Civilization that fended off the Ancient Foe--usually, a peaceful, Utopian society, threatened only by this horrible monster, which was usually much more scientifically and magically advanced than their descendants. (More on that later.) Also, any ancient artifact--ranging from the ones specifically designed to be powerful, to the shield that the hero happened to use--will always be incredibly powerful, and, incidentally, immune to aging, rusting, or any kind of entropy. (Not dust, of course.) And, of course, the one that I will never, ever understand: how in the WORLD did these Ancient Civilizations build those elaborate traps in the temples, how do they still function after centuries/millenia, and how were they supposed to get to their own treasures??

Sometimes, it makes sense. Maybe there was a cataclysmic event that caused this society to lose a lot of its progress, so it's simply a matter of lost practices and technology. Secrets and history are constantly lost to new generations in real life; it's not that difficult to come up with a plausible explanation, enriching the universe rather than finding a cheap way out. And fantasy writers, please note: this does not apply to "His magic is ancient--I don't know if my magic can withstand him". This is exactly what I was talking about earlier: writers have become so good at making the audience assume "ancient = better", that they simply describe something as "ancient", and that justifies it being a legitimate threat. That on its own, I mean. *Sigh*

So, what do we have so far? An Ancient council which ruled a great civilization, and were considered (usually just in-story) to be very wise, often times practically knowing the future. Because they are ancient (apparently), they are also supremely powerful (after all, how often do they instantly clean up the mess their Ancient Foe left behind after vanquishing him?). So, I have a question: what happened to them, and their civilization? If it was so perfect and protected by such "powerful magics", then how did it become its modern state--which is usually a cheap imitation of the original, lacking a lot of the original powers of the original civilization*? Given how often they make prophecies about the future and/or leave behind an artifact destined for one/a group of heroes who will succeed them, how don't they prevent the fall of their awesome kingdom?

*In no small part because they usually hid all the truly powerful artifacts all over the planet. Where anyone could find and use them, if they were lucky. *Sigh* And these were supposed to be the all-knowing, all-powerful Ancients?

Okay, I know full well that it's realistic for civilizations to eventually collapse. I know that if the kingdom kind of went through a gradual decline, the Ancients probably had few options, provided they were of the prophetic variety. The only reason I even mention it is out of spite, admittedly: the writers frequently make the Ancients and the civilization really, really perfect, and it annoys me. It's usually just plot device, and a way to make the audience sympathize with this kingdom that they'll never really "encounter". Doesn't make it any less frustrating when they use this kind of shortcut, and then ignore the actual implications they have.

Okay, and I have one more "Take That" to issue: it's kind of interesting how frequently the modern heroes do better than the Ancients. The Ancients let their civilizations decay; the Heroes have to restore it. The Ancients either let their Foe live or couldn't kill him; generally, the Heroes are better about stopping him permanently, sometimes by removing his power entirely. The Ancients may have kept their hands bloodless, but they're usually terrible about keeping secrets and deceit; the Heroes are bastions of truth, piercing the darkness, all those wonderful images. Again, this is oversimplifying; after all, not all Heroes even do that well. But it is kind of surprisingly common, given that half the time, the Heroes greatly admire the Ancients.

So, what was the point of this post? Basically, I was just venting my frustrations about a tired plot device which is frequently more frustrating than anything else. The Ancients, generally, serve as characters just powerful enough to make shortcuts in the narrative, like prophecies (justifying our hero's involvement in the fight), villains (Ancient Foes they didn't bother to vanquish), or powerful objects (usually, that the villain greatly desires). And, quite frankly, there's generally a sort of hero worship, in-story and intended for the audience, associated with them: they're usually depicted as wise, powerful beings. But, for me, they're worthy of contempt. My biggest issue is easily shuffling off their problems on a future generation, simply because their definition of "good" is so narrowly defined--it really doesn't help that they're powerful enough to create and protect all the Ancient Awesome, and yet they weren't powerful enough to actually do anything useful.

*Sigh* Okay, finally got that off my chest. :P :) I should end with one last thing: I do not have a problem with using history, fantasy or "our world", in the story. In fact, there are times this can be done extremely well--at the very least, it's acceptable. If there is a reason for something ancient--time for the world to have forgotten important details, incorporated into real-world history, etc.--or the writers actually deal with the implications of the things I mentioned. (Ah, writers. With carelessness they can sow seeds of frustration in their audience; if they're clever, they can create a whole new level of enjoyment. Thank you to all the writers who try their hardest to treat their material well! :))