The Big Picture: Junk Drawer Rises

[Sean Deli]

Batman talking to Martian Manhunter:
"Something tells me that you are not a threat, but remember this: I've got a 50 000 dollar chunk of a meteorite in case the red-blue boy from Metropolis acts up. For you I'll need a penny to buy a box of matches"

There might be a time, when there is enough Batman, but there will never be enough GOOD Batman.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Django Unchained: I personally can't wait to see what Fox News has to say about it. Considering they tried to convince everyone the Muppets was socialist propaganda, when they have something that can actually be controversial, who knows how insane they'll be?

Brave: I keep forgetting just how close to release this movie is. It just showed up out of nowhere for me, even if I knew about it for a while.

Batman: It really wouldn't be a problem... but these days Batman is the only DC hero who is getting any love at all. If you aren't Batman, you aren't being handled by people who give a shit.

 

[Ashoten]

Far as Batman goes. It all depends on how fresh and original the new movie will do at keeping the franchise relevant and still entertaining. If all goes well with Batman Rises then no people won't have had enough for at least another year or more.

Also I heard that even though the Green lantern movie bombed at the box office and could be considered a war crime if shown to prisoners, it made a lot of money on merchandise sales so how does that effect the possibilities of another movie?

Additionally. After seeing the mind blowing awesome IronMan movies where an innovative billionaire combines Lasers, Jet engines, Tank armor, Advanced A.I., and a lovably snarky wit into one sweet looking suit of armor the concept of a guy with a bow and arrow seems dated and impractical. Unless all the criminals only carry knifes and brass knuckles. I know the imagery of a bow is kinda sexy and romantic but it just isn't a very good weapon against guns and body armor.

 

[Eric Morales]

Hold it right there bub, I mean Bob. What the Mario franchise has been doing isn't really innovation as much as it is polishing. Adding a world map screen here, some new powerups there, that sort of thing. But you know what? That's fine, Mario as a series is staying true to its core engagement: A 2D platformer in a whimsical world called the Mushroom Kingdom with power ups and possibly Yoshi.

When the Mario series has radically changed its formula in recent years --say with 4 player co-op or 3d gameplay, that water gun from Sunshine or all those stupid sports games with the Mario brand stapled to them- it gets in the way of what's actually fun about the series.

The Call of Duty and various EA sports franchises have likewise stayed true to their core engagements, namely shooting people in different colored uniforms or tackling people in different colored uniforms. While that particular engagement may not appeal to you, its churlish to dismiss those games for staying true to their core engagement, whether or not that engagement appeals to you.

Neither Mario, nor Call of Duty, nor Madden is moving the industry forward these days, those games can have every right to exist, and may well be fun to play; but let be honest, none of them are likely to move the medium forward.

I guess what I'm saying is curb your enthusiasm.

Re. Batman: Have I had enough? I'll tell you when I've had enough

 

[MarlonBlazed]

Oh but there will be more Batman... Arkham City left countless spoilers to there next game like they did in Asylum.

 

[Alterego-X]

Non-fans will always feel that the series that they don't care about to begin with, is "always all the same". As long as you are not enthusiastic about the theme, you can downplay any fresh content as "just new levels" or "just a texture-swap", or "yet another [genre name], but this time it takes place in..."

And that's OK. No franchise should be expected to be so innovative that even non-fans can appreciate it from a distance, as Mario did with all the different genres. If Mario fans think that it should stick to 2D platforming, it's OK. 2D platforming is not a "formula", it's a legitimate genre, and it's OK for a franchise to only innovate inside the limits of this genre, with new level designs, power-ups, features, etc.

And COD shouldn't be expected to be anything more than a military FPS with the occasional tweaks or setting changes, either.

The question is whether established franchises are too prominent compared to new ones, and whether it's ok that they are so popular that they represent all of gaming. Maybe it would be healthier for gaming if COD and Mario would both become niches, but there, it's in their nature to stick to their basic genres, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Navvan]

Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

You are correct, there are tons of people that have limited powers and are even entirely human. The "power" difference between the two universes isn't really even existent. In fact the Marvel universe arguable has more powerful characters but they tend to have even more powerful villains/non-heroes. Galactus, The Beyonder, Kubik, Apocalypse, Celestials, Phoenix Force, Infinity Gauntlet, and many others are far more powerful than what is common in the DC universe. That isn't to say there aren't rediciously powerful beings in the DC universe (Spectre, Lucifer, Nekron, Anti-Monitor, and so forth). The problem is in how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight. Superman would be somewhere around Thor's power-level in the Marvel universe I suspect. Just with a bit more utility.

 

[ivc392]

Am I the only one that noticed that it's the first time both, Pixar and Disney, change their main characters... eh... anatomy? I mean, ALL of Pixar's protagonists, up to date, are male while Disney's roaster is saturated with princesses.

 

[LadyRhian]

Well perhaps there are people out there who would consider "A triple-barrel gatling gun where each barrel is a six-barrel minigun" for example, to be the ludicrous, over designed bastard child of a frustrated and immature developer with a compensation complex, rather than entertaining. Just sayin'.

Let's just assume for a moment that I don't really care about modern guns (which I don't). Most FPS games have such boring, boring, BORING weapons. Not just in terms of what they do, but in terms of how they look. Watching modern shooter videos it gets hard to tell what game you're watching, let alone what everyone is armed with.

Can you honestly tell me that you're going to confuse and triple-linked minigun with any other weapon on the battlefield? No you are not! You are going to see that weapon and think "Oh shit he's got a Minigun On Steroids!"

Even from the player's perspective, that kind of design is welcome. Yes, it might function mechanically much like the M3&3/4 assault rifle, but visually you have a very distinct firing firing animation as all three sets of barrels rotate on their own axis, and then rotate around each other as well.

All I can hear in my head when I think of that is Heavy from TF2 shouting, "It is Coward Killing Time!"

 

[Scrustle]

As much as I respect and enjoy your content Bob, I don't think you are really in the type of profession in which you are allowed to seriously complain about being under stress. I'm not saying what you do it easy (of course not), but there are many people who have it plenty worse.

But more on the topic in hand, I agree there's been too much Batman recently. For a while now I've gotten kind of bored with everyone talking about Batman as if he's Chuck Norris, and comparing every single car that looks the slightest bit menacing to being the Batmobile. Batman is good, but you can have too much of a good thing.

And on the subject of Wreck-it Ralph, am I the only one with a sneaking suspicion that we have already seen pretty much all the cameos of the entire movie?

 

[Redd the Sock]

Zangeif has been established as a Bison henchman in at least some Street Fighter adaptations (and not just for being a total moron like in the live action film.) Specifcally the Street Fighter 2 V anime series. Not a great show unless you're looking for an example of the abuse of reusing stock footage.

Wreck it Ralph looks like my wet dream, but I dread having to expalin refrences to friends. I also fear it may feel incomplete without at least some refrence to Kingdom Hearts. I'd better see a keyblade in there somewhere.

Mario: platformers have an innovation edge due to the nature of the game. Name a dozen platformers and you can easially get a dozen different playstyles, rules, and feels. Shooters, not so much. Sports, even less. Still, I'm willing to indulge for a while.

Django: I hate Tarentino so I'll pass.

Brave: pixar can be more style than substanceat times, but at least they get the style right.

Arrow: hoping for a life shorter than Birds of Prey. (a show that proves not everything connected to batman is gold)

Batman: I'll paraphrase Jim Sterling, it's not we have too much Batman, it's that the rest of DC can't catch a break. I'm torn between asking Rocksteady to do Batman Beyond for an Arkham City follow up, or asking what they can to for Superman.

 

[LadyRhian]

Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

You are correct, there are tons of people that have limited powers and are even entirely human. The "power" difference between the two universes isn't really even existent. In fact the Marvel universe arguable has more powerful characters but they tend to have even more powerful villains/non-heroes. Galactus, The Beyonder, Kubik, Apocalypse, Celestials, Phoenix Force, Infinity Gauntlet, and many others are far more powerful than what is common in the DC universe. That isn't to say there aren't rediciously powerful beings in the DC universe (Spectre, Lucifer, Nekron, Anti-Monitor, and so forth). The problem is in how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight. Superman would be somewhere around Thor's power-level in the Marvel universe I suspect. Just with a bit more utility.

The Big Difference is that Marvel's characters tend to have flaws that limit them more than DC's characters do. Thor, at least in the comics, was limited to a truly human form (with a limp, no less). He wasn't playing at being human, he was human. Whereas Superman just puts on a suit and wears glasses. Spiderman had a truly crappy personal life- he had a complete life of suck where he could do nothing right, not to mention being responsible for his own Uncle's death by not stopping the guy who actually went out and killed him, even though he could have. Batman was a child when his parents got killed. What could he have done to prevent it? I am not saying DC heroes are without personal flaws (although some certainly are, Superman for one), but the Marvel heroes have larger and more limiting ones. That was Stan Lee's big contribution to the genre, that the heroes are more heroic when overcoming personal limitations that actually do limit them in some way.

 

[Swarmcrow]

NO! THERE CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH BATMAN!!!!!!!!

exactly!!!

 

[Hitchmeister]

So, is "Arrow" going to be an actual thing? Or is it going to quietly go the way of the Aquaman series of a few years ago?


Capcha: once upon a time

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Bob, is sounds like you need to take some sort of vacation. Although I do enjoy these 'Junk Drawer' episodes.

Also, we need a Batman FPS zombie casual video game based off of a movie by Michael Bay, then we would have enough of him.

 

[twaddle]

I actually wish for to see more Superman. Smallvile started off meaning well but ended in disaster with everyone thinking thank god its over...Take that back I dont want to see superman or any of the main staples of DC. I want blue beetle to have a show as well as a reboot version of aquaman and Flash

 

[Navvan]

Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

You are correct, there are tons of people that have limited powers and are even entirely human. The "power" difference between the two universes isn't really even existent. In fact the Marvel universe arguable has more powerful characters but they tend to have even more powerful villains/non-heroes. Galactus, The Beyonder, Kubik, Apocalypse, Celestials, Phoenix Force, Infinity Gauntlet, and many others are far more powerful than what is common in the DC universe. That isn't to say there aren't rediciously powerful beings in the DC universe (Spectre, Lucifer, Nekron, Anti-Monitor, and so forth). The problem is in how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight. Superman would be somewhere around Thor's power-level in the Marvel universe I suspect. Just with a bit more utility.

The Big Difference is that Marvel's characters tend to have flaws that limit them more than DC's characters do. Thor, at least in the comics, was limited to a truly human form (with a limp, no less). He wasn't playing at being human, he was human. Whereas Superman just puts on a suit and wears glasses. Spiderman had a truly crappy personal life- he had a complete life of suck where he could do nothing right, not to mention being responsible for his own Uncle's death by not stopping the guy who actually went out and killed him, even though he could have. Batman was a child when his parents got killed. What could he have done to prevent it? I am not saying DC heroes are without personal flaws (although some certainly are, Superman for one), but the Marvel heroes have larger and more limiting ones. That was Stan Lee's big contribution to the genre, that the heroes are more heroic when overcoming personal limitations that actually do limit them in some way.

This person speaks the truth. I suppose I should have expanded upon the statement "...how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight" as it was left rather vague. There are plenty of people within the DC universe that are actually flawed/limited/interesting/well characterized or however you want to put it. Sadly they often aren't in the spotlight. Likewise characters like Superman could be portrayed as having flaws without sacrificing what makes the character who they are. On occasion they are portrayed that way, and incidentally those tend to be the most well received stories whether or not they are canon. It just isn't the case most of the time.

In my original post I merely wanted to point out the "Demi-Gods amongst men" statement wasn't really any different between universes.

 

[370999]

I'm amazed that everyone is so excited over Wreck it Ralph, the trailer looked cool, but really, you are that easily satisfied over Bowser, Zangief, and the Pac-Man ghost? I'm sorry but it just seems way to geeky to obsess over it. The movie does look good however.

Mario innovates? Well a little I suppose. Maybe if COD was to slow down it's production cycle and do only one to two games per console it would "innovate" as much as Mario.

Batman is overused, and I do hate this inane "Batman can beat anyone with prep time" arguments people produce as it's just silly. Still he has produced two great games and movies recently so I let him off the hook.

Also, Batman is the only interesting DC character, the rest are Demi-gods walking amongst mere mortals, Over-powered fantasy characters that even the Bat himself falls prey too in "Being able to plan for everything" trap.

Yes, I prefer Marvel characters, they have tend to have a Set power, and stick to it.

(note, I'm not massively into comics so I don't have a ton of lore, just working off what I've seen)

Uh, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure DC has a TON of non-powered characters. Wildcat, Green Arrow, Huntress, the entire bat-family, Shining Knight, and Manhunter just off the top of my head. And that's not even counting "suit" characters.

You are correct, there are tons of people that have limited powers and are even entirely human. The "power" difference between the two universes isn't really even existent. In fact the Marvel universe arguable has more powerful characters but they tend to have even more powerful villains/non-heroes. Galactus, The Beyonder, Kubik, Apocalypse, Celestials, Phoenix Force, Infinity Gauntlet, and many others are far more powerful than what is common in the DC universe. That isn't to say there aren't rediciously powerful beings in the DC universe (Spectre, Lucifer, Nekron, Anti-Monitor, and so forth). The problem is in how they are portrayed and who has the spotlight. Superman would be somewhere around Thor's power-level in the Marvel universe I suspect. Just with a bit more utility.

The Big Difference is that Marvel's characters tend to have flaws that limit them more than DC's characters do. Thor, at least in the comics, was limited to a truly human form (with a limp, no less). He wasn't playing at being human, he was human. Whereas Superman just puts on a suit and wears glasses. Spiderman had a truly crappy personal life- he had a complete life of suck where he could do nothing right, not to mention being responsible for his own Uncle's death by not stopping the guy who actually went out and killed him, even though he could have. Batman was a child when his parents got killed. What could he have done to prevent it? I am not saying DC heroes are without personal flaws (although some certainly are, Superman for one), but the Marvel heroes have larger and more limiting ones. That was Stan Lee's big contribution to the genre, that the heroes are more heroic when overcoming personal limitations that actually do limit them in some way.

I'm not the biggest comic book fan but I thought there was a general philsophical trend that Marvel would make characters you would relate to while DC would make characters that you would look up to an be inspired by. And part of the knock on effect of that was that Marvel superheroes tended to be less powerful then their DC counterparts.

 

[Kuth]

The Ralph movie looks like a blast, if not a decent movie. Can't wait to see who is in it.

Brave. Oh I don't know about that. A good positive girl movie, but per-enlightened patriarchal? I'm laughing at that idea right there. You can't really impose an idea of iron will patriarchy when every male in the movie is a blubbering idiot, including the King.

Batman.. oh man. I am not a bit fan of Batman, but maybe when something churns out later on to be crap, and that continues as a trend, then we are done with Batman. Batman is still going to milk properly because people like Batman. When he begins to suck, the idiots will cry it out, and thus less of a profit.

 

[Trekkie]

I was never really much into the batman to begin with but i can see the hype as getting a little old now. As for Django, id only have a problem with it if it painted all white people as slave owners and as being evil simply for the fact they are white.... be honest i don't think it will do that but there will be a problem if it dose, racism run both ways.

as for brave.... well.... id be here all day. So ill just let Girlwriteswhat say it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8&feature=g-all-c