A Mad Man with A Box

I am a huge Doctor Who fan. Not just the current version of the character, or even just since his reboot in 2005. I can fondly remember staying up late to watch reruns of the Doctor’s adventures on PBS. For those who don't know the character, Doctor Who is a British Sci-Fi program about a time traveling alien and his human friends that has the honor of being the longest running science fiction program on television.

I was a fan of Tom Baker (4^th Doctor) and Peter Davison (5^th).  I disliked Colin Baker (6^th Doctor) for the same reasons most fans didn’t like Colin Baker. And then sadly there must have been a drop in the pledge drive because at some point they stopped rerunning episodes.

While I never forgot about the Doctor, I did grow up more and found other outlets for my geekiness. I discovered Star Trek and comic books. I read Star Wars novels and wanted to grow up to be MacGyver. My memory of the Doctor was pushed aside slightly. It wasn’t until 1996 where the Doctor was brought back into my life. The Fox Network teamed up with the BBC to make a TV movie that should have sparked a new series. Sadly, it never went anywhere and once again The Doctor and I parted ways.

My Temple

After that brief encounter, many things happened in my life. Graduated High School, went to college, got even more nerdy and geeky. Comic books and sci-fi went from being obscure and outsiderish to being mainstream cool, and I felt a certain joy knowing I loved this stuff before the rest of you.  So therefore it was only a matter of time before the good Doctor would return.

In 2005 the BBC granted the wishes of nerds and fanboys across the world. A brand new series of Doctor Who was released. Christopher Eccleston was cast in the title role in a brand new regeneration and the events of the previous series were all a part of his back story. Along with Christopher was Billie Piper playing the role of Rose Tyler, his new companion. The companions are a staple of the show with them being the audience’s eyes into the amazing life of the doctor.

 

After one brief season of thirteen episodes, where we were introduced to a host of new characters and planets, Christopher Eccleston departed the show after the Doctor had a startling encounter with his old enemy the Daleks. But like every fan of the show knows when the main actor leaves that doesn’t mean the show is over. In the final minutes of the season finale the 9^th Doctor regenerated into the 10^th played by David Tennant.

For many fans David Tennant was their Doctor. What Peter Davison had been to me, he was to them. And that is their introduction to the world of Who. Those who mourned the loss of 9 quickly forgot about him with 10. While Christopher Eccleston’s Doctor seemed to hide a secret pain, David Tennant’s doctor was full of fury.  Part of me has to thank him for drawing so many people to the series.

During David Tennant’s run as the Doctor we saw many classic Who characters and villains return to the series. While the previous series saw the return of the Daleks, the next season saw the return of another classic villain, the Cybermen. That season also led to the establishment of Torchwood as a part of the Who universe which would become a spin off series all its own. We also saw the return of former Doctor companion Sarah Jane Smith. She was also spun off into her own series (sadly the actress who played Sarah Jane, Miss Elizabeth Sladen, passed away at the end of the fourth season).

"I don't want to go"

After three seasons and multiple specials, both actor David Tennant and showrunner Russell T. Davies decided it was time to leave the show. During the massive two part special The End of Time, which saw the return of Timelords and a massive showdown between the Doctor and his arch-nemesis the Master, the 10^th Doctor once more regenerated.

In a burst or energy and flames that destroyed most of the interior of the Tardis, David Tennant regenerated into Matt Smith. Matt Smith’s portrayal of the Doctor is where the title of this entry comes from. His version of the Doctor truly is a “Mad man with a box”. The box of course being the Tardis which got a major overhaul from the one used for Eccleston and Tennant. Matt Smith’s version of the character appears to be almost an idiot savant. A genius when it comes to complex things but complete rubbish and almost childlike when it comes to the simplest of tasks.

Along with a new doctor we got a pair of new companions. Initially the Doctor was teamed with a feisty redhead named Amy Pond. The two were later joined by Amy’s fiancée (later husband, played by Arthur Darvill). This was significant because so far since the series had been rebooted in 2005 the Doctor’s companions had all been women (not counting Donna’s grandfather during a Christmas special).  An additional character added to the cast off and on was River Song, played by Alex Kingston, who appears to know everything about the Doctor’s future.

 

And that is where we currently leave the Doctor. Currently this is the seventh season of the new Doctor Who and it is looking to be quite a treat. Just a bit of trivia but next year is the Fiftieth anniversary of the original Doctor. We can only hope the creators and writers have something special in store for us the fans.

Green Lantern: The Cracker Jack Super Hero

Now before I begin, let me just say that I am a huge fan of the character of Green Lantern. I really got into the character during Ron Marz’s run on the book and have been a fan ever since. That being said, I have a lot of beef with the way Green Lanterns are used in the comics, especially in recent years.

First off, let me give every one a crash course in ring slinging (the term used fondly by GLs for using their power rings). The Green Lanterns are an intergalactic police force that patrol the Universe with the aid of magic rings that have been bestowed upon them by The Guardians, the oldest race in the Universe. Green Lanterns are selected from thousands of different worlds, and each Green Lantern is picked by their individual ring. This is an important fact that will factor into my argument. The Green Lanterns are able to harness the green power of will to fly, project energy form their rings, and create solid light constructs. In essence, if the bearer can will it into being then the ring can create it.

Original GL

Now while there was a character called Green Lantern in the 1940s, DC Comics mostly seems to focus on the adventures of Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern of space sector 2814 (which happens to contain Earth and a number of other planets) who was introduced in the 1960s. While initially Hal was the only Green Lantern operating on Earth, over the years he has been burdened with a number of additional Lanterns. Guy Gardner, John Stewart (no, not the host of the Daily Show) and Kyle Rayner are three other Green Lanterns that all call Earth their home. This is a bit of an embarrassment for Hal Jordan.

There are no backup Supermen, auxiliary Aquamen, or spare Flashes. There is a Batman Incorporated, but that’s a recent invention of the comics. Essentially what I am trying to say is that there are not extra versions of other super heroes. The other heroes of the DC Universe do not need replacements to help them do their job. Occasionally these heroes will join together in the Justice League to take on threats they cannot handle alone, but that’s more a case of each hero enhancing the group in ways the other heroes can’t, augmenting each other if you will. Each Green Lantern however has the same powers and abilities of the other Lanterns. Having more than one Green Lantern is redundant.

Also, as shown in the recent Earth-2 #1 and Green Lantern #0, it seems like the writers at DC Comics are using GL as a way to explore social issues. The Green Lantern of Earth-2 is the original Green Lantern from the 1940s who has been reinvented as a gay man. Something I find ironic since this removed him from classic DC history and eliminated his son, Obsidian, who had already been established as a gay super hero. Essentially they eliminated one gay character to create another. And now in Green Lantern #0 [SPOILERS] they have passed Hal Jordan’s ring on to a Muslim-American man, though they have hinted that Hal may still be alive. [END SPOILERS]

Bat-Lantern!

The above two examples are by no means rare. Green Lantern rings have been given to nearly every character in the DC Universe, both in and out of continuity. Superman had one, Batman had one, there was even a brief story where Jimmy Olsen had a GL ring. If everyone has a thing it soon ceases to be special, as any good collector will tell you. Even the addition of Green Lantern John Stewart in 1971 was an attempt to add an African American super hero into the DC Universe.

The X-Men's Dust

I am certainly not arguing that there should not be gay super heroes. Or Muslim super heroes. I simply think it would be better if such characters were brand new original creations, and not simply repurposed powers and identities of other characters. Characters that have new and interesting stories to tell. As much as I like Green Lantern(s), they have the least interesting origins of any hero. A magic ring flies up to them and slips on their finger. While I’m sure many fans wish such a thing would happen to them (guilty), it’s hardly compelling storytelling.

It seems appropriate that it is the character of Green Lantern that is used to explore these important social issues because in reality that is what the publishers care about. Green. As in profits. While it is all well and good that minorities are being represented in comics, it is the hope of publishers that publishing such stories will entice readers. In many ways it is like what I explored in my previous entry about death in comics (see here). In this case, instead of the death of a character it is the rebranding of the character that is the event. I would not be surprised if we saw a massive rebranding of multiple heroes over the next several years, changing the race, religion, orientation and even gender of many of our favorite heroes.

Vampires vs. Werewolves: The Never Ending Debate

While on my way to the movies, I happened to overhear a conversation about the most contested and divisive argument of our age. Team Edward or Team Jacob. More than Democrats and Republicans, Cats and Dogs, this is the most fervent argument to spark the minds of the modern man and woman (mostly women). And in essence this debate about two dreamy heart throbs more than just being about who is more desirable, is about a much more important issue. Who are the better monsters? Vampires or Werewolves?

Now before I can explore a debate between these two creatures I need to answer a few important questions. Which type of vampires and werewolves? There have been so many different versions of these monsters in movies, tv and books. I already explored a bit of the evolution of vampires in a previous blog (see here) but although Edward Cullen partially inspired this entry, I do not consider the Twilight vampires to be traditional vampires. They do not have fangs, do not need to avoid sunlight and generally blend in with normal human society.

 

To that end, I also do not consider the werewolves in Twilight to be true werewolves. Their instantaneous ability to transform from human to wolf and back again with ease goes against so much that has been established by other films about werewolves. Also a werewolf is a combination between a man and a wolf, not simply a giant wolf. Also there is the weakness to silver, which is common in so much werewolf lore, though I do not believe the werewolves of Twilight possess this weakness.

If there is to truly be a fight between vampires and werewolves it should be between the best and toughest versions of those creatures. To me the epitome of vampire are the vampires portrayed in the comic 30 Days of Night and its subsequent sequel series. In Days, the vampires are hideous monsters with mouths full of teeth and unquenchable thirst for blood. For the werewolves, the best example of lycanthropes on screen comes from the movie The Howling. The Howling werewolves were huge hulking like monsters that could violently change from human to wolf-man at will.

Now I know I’m not the first to imagine a vampire versus werewolf battle. If you’re not familiar with them there are the Underworld films, which revolve around that very concept, with the first being almost a Romeo & Juliet tale between the two monsters with actions scenes and wardrobe straight out of The Matrix. Sadly those four (currently) films don’t quite answer the question of which is the superior species. Both vampire and werewolf appear to be immortal so it’s hard to say one has a plus side the other doesn’t.

Part of me has to wonder why this conflict would even exist in the first place. Vampires are usually portrayed as inhabiting an urban environment while werewolves are portrayed in wooded and forest areas. One kills for sustenance while the other seems to kill at random those who come across its path. It seems they would avoid each other. Like a bear and a wolf. They aren’t natural enemies but will defend themselves when threatened by the other. So the only reason vampires and werewolves would ever fight is if the two species had a notion of territoriality, which is doubtful.

Werewolf+Vampire = Nightcrawler?

In essence, I think the real reasons behind people’s fascination between vampires and werewolves is because they both represent aspects of humanity. Werewolves are our primal savage nature while vampires represent the negative aspects of our civilized selves. Vampires embody the gluttony and greed we all try to deny ourselves. 

What Makes a Super Hero?

When a person hears the word “superhero”, what is the first image to come to mind? Superman seems the obvious choice. Some others might think Spider-Man or Captain America. But how do we define the term superhero?  Is everyone with powers a hero? In that case, Batman is not a super hero. Does a mask and costume make a hero? Well then Jenny Sparks does not count.

There have been many people from many walks of life who have been given the mantle of super hero. But did they deserve it? Do we need to subdivide and reclassify how we use that label? I think we do. A recent film that came out this past year was Chronicle and it was advertised as a Superhero/Found footage film. But the characters in this film had no secret identities or colorful costumes, just amazing powers, specifically telekinesis. But by that standard, you could claim that Carrie is a superhero movie and yet I, and most people, have only ever considered Carrie to be a horror movie.

On the opposite end of super hero films from Chronicle is Kick-Ass. In that movie there are no powers. The characters for all intents and purposes exist in a very real world. But people in that world choose to don the colorful costumes of characters normally seen only in comic books. There is nothing super about them but they call themselves super heroes.

Perhaps it is merely the name. “Super hero” certainly sounds much more noble and dignified than “vigilante”. But in reality that’s what they are. From Superman to Spider-Man to The Avengers, they are all vigilantes. Sometimes they report to the police or government but for the most part these teams and individuals are operating outside the law by their own set of rules. They do not arrest criminals simply for breaking the law but instead for violating some sort of moral code that is completely arbitrary to the hero.

It is only by their deeds that super heroes are allowed to operate in public. Characters like The Punisher regularly commit murder and hence are hunted down by the police. But a noble character like Captain America can operate without intervention from the authorities. The worst he does is bruise people with his shield. Though The Punisher and Captain America are not so different. Both were trained as soldiers. In fact, The Punisher has been established as idolizing Captain America. Cap represents the patriotic ideal and as a soldier, Frank Castle (aka The Punisher) would strive to be that. But then his family was brutally gunned down and any sense of nobility left in Frank Castle died with them.

So what makes a super hero? The Punisher certainly isn’t heroic but many call him a super hero. Same with characters like Spawn and others. Why?  If the Punisher is a super hero, we might as well say that Bernie Getz (the Subway Vigilante, google it) was also a super hero. I certainly don't think he was.

"We're Superheroes!"

Costumes do not make a super hero. Powers do not make a super hero. Codes of conduct do not make a super hero. And yet all those things are important to the super hero genre. Perhaps there is no definitive formula for a super hero. You can use a multitude of ingredients and circumstances to bring a super hero to life and the only thing required is that they be identified as such.