A subversive trend: In defense of "trippy" animated comedies

I have this debate with my dad almost every time he stumbles upon a show I like. With the younger adult demographic being fed things like Black Jesus: loud, rutterless and only funny if you’re willing to sacrifice a bit of intelligence, a lot of fiction is becoming less and less inclusive. It started with Adult Swim, sure, but this trend of weird, almost always animated shows has spread to almost every major station. I’ve never met someone from an older generation that enjoyed the stupidity of something like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, or John Benjamin Has a Van (Whose titular character and real life human has lent at least his voice to a staggering number of the programs in this genre.) Looking at these shows logically, which is something these shows count on you not doing, I can totally see where older folks are coming from.

One fact brought to light by these trippy, animated comedies, and live-action shows in the same style, is that something doesn’t have to be good to be enjoyable. Everyone is aware of this to some degree. That’s why, when a Dolph Lundgren action flick comes on our television screens at 2 o clock in the afternoon, we don’t angrily press our red off button with enough force to dislodge it from its little socket. A lot of those old action movies are bad on purpose too, but the trippy comedies of today actually take that intentional suck a step farther.

Series with a lot of action will feature rough looking, overly badass leads that give off a vibe best described as “faux-grit”. The voice-actors, or real actors, will put on an overly dark, raspy voice like Rorschach in Watchmen (Only that guy was being serious) and will have certain aspects of their character type played up where appropriate: air-headedness, bloodlust, the fact that their tough exterior is compensating for some hilarious character flaw. Where this varies from traditional satire is that the joke goes on for so long, and the characters are put up against so much real action, that series like Venture Bros. and Metalocalypse only seem like half-satires.

Action series will sometimes have episodes where very few, if any jokes are told. Family Guy actually does this, but with more of an emphasis on melodrama and adventure when they decide to have a serious episode. This constant experimentation with different genres definitely draws in viewers with a different kind of thinking pattern, and establishes a different set of rules for kids hoping to make their own shows one day.

Perhaps the reason my dad, along with a good chunk of america, get tired of these shows is that they rely on writing tools that are generally regarded as lazy and lowbrow: repetition, gross-out gags, etc. This has caused a lot of outcry from the "cultured" critics of Fancyville, who give no merit to a program that would stoop that low. The belief is that stupid humor makes for a stupid show, and that's something this genre loves to challenge. In the same breath that someone makes a poop joke, they may also reference some obscure historical figure. Adventure Time in particular features almost as many references to nuclear war and emotional bonds as it does nonsense jokes and funny noises.

It's interesting, too, that these shows manage to appeal to both stoners and the sober, without a lot being lost on either audience. Adult Swim launched when I was in elementary school, so perhaps growing up with these shows has given us a different kind of brain, one that can switch between the logic of more conventional shows while also appreciating the absurdity of these strange programs. There's no doubt that subversive writing is becoming more and more mainstream, though the actual effect this will have on programming in the future is hard to decipher. Right now it's a rather large niche for a rather specific age demographic, I'd like to get a better idea of what kinds of parents have come out of being raised on this stuff --- hopefully not ones that do a lot of drugs.

Marve'ls new emphasis on female heroes is good for boys, too

I hear a LOT of complaints going around about current Captain Marvel Carol Danvers: why does she matters? why is she likable? And why does she needs her own series? Hell, with all these female heroes getting solo series: Spider-Woman,Gwen Stacy as alternate reality, white-suited also Spider-Woman, and She-Hulk, who is not a Spider-Woman --- the real issue has become the visibility of female heroes in the comics medium. No one seems to care that they are getting visibility, but that it's happening almost overnight, seeming more like a panicked effort to increase the number of females with their own books and regular spots on the big teams than an artistic expression.

One explanation could be that these books are coming out so quickly simply because they can. From what I gather, it sounds like some people would prefer an eleven year, female comic release schedule, which is totally unnecessary when dealing with a medium of paper and ink, instead of the sets, computers, and big name actors present in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Consider too that these continuous, rapid-fire releases of female-driven books, and female supporting characters joining existing books, haven't come close to measuring up when compared to the number of men and male-like beings that populate comics today. If Marvel isn't launching these books and creating these characters out of panic, they fucking should be.

Beyond the benefit of giving women the chance to read about someone far closer to themselves, I can tell you that having more female characters, with personalities and problems and stuff, is an incredibly important concept for young boys too. Having been one myself, I can assure you that strong female role models are incredibly important to our development into stable adults. That sexism in the nerd community thing that men insist doesn't exist?

It Totally.Fucking.Exists.

Growing up, there were two "rules of masculinity" instilled in the brains of my friends and I from early middle school on. The first: men SHOULD like women. Everybody knows that one, but I still remember a second unbreakable law among little dudes of the nerd persuasion, or anyone who made a hobby out of consuming fiction: that you SHOULDN'T like female characters. This last rule only applies to anything they actually say or do: badass one-liners, achievements and the like. If they're attractive (Or rather, what teenagers are supposed to think is attractive) you are allowed to gawk at them and talk about how nice their pencil-drawn busts look in their imaginary wizard fabric that somehow accentuates every curve of their handcrafted, not real figure.

For me, 9th grade was a prime gawking year, but I grew out of it quickly, around the same time I broke rule #1 and came out as bi. There's no denying that teenagers are naturally horny, and having crushes on people that aren't real is a thing that totally happens. What bothers me is the idea is that that's all women can be to a boy reading comics. What gets to me too is the sad truth that a good chunk of my friends, most now out of college, have the opinion hard-wired into their circuitry that obscure characters should stay obscure, and obscurity is where a lot of these characters have lingered for years.

For the record, any fictional character can be interesting. They don't exist, so it's not like they need to hang out with a group of hipster website startup employees to learn how to captivate a room with their charisma. Making a character interesting works especially well when that character isn't all that known. Tony Stark's loyal butler Jarvis can't suddenly trade in his dry personality for an eccentric, whimsical old man feel, but a lot of the women getting books now haven't really had their personalities developed. Even if they have, the average reader probably doesn't know a thing about someone like Squirrel Girl, who has only been a regular in one series since her inception. (Is she the small-but-spunky character type? Goofy, seemingly innocent but actually incredibly dangerous? Doreen Green who's that??)

An interesting woman, fictional or otherwise, can make all the difference to a kid learning his role as a man who likes women. Kevin Hart does a joke about making your wife feel like she's fun, even if she isn't. I can only speak for the guys, so this may be true for women as well, but when we think about what's "fun" we tend to only think about what we do with other guys. Like Hart, I was only ever told to pretend to be interested in what my future spouse enjoys, never to actually participate and try to find the fun in it.What I'm suggesting in this post, I actually approached the opposite way. I started reading female led books after I had already taken part in my girlfriend's hobbies, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.

For boys who don't yet have girlfriends, I think it's almost a necessity that they be raised on at least a few female led stories. Learning to admire a leader like Carol Danvers is important for these kids who are where I once was. It all boils down to this shit that I saw growing up, but didn't process until it was put into perspective. Growing up, we got our image of power from Dragon Ball Z or New Adventures of Superman, then looked for that image when choosing a mentor. Joss Whedon has said that having a strong mom led him to write strong characters. For kids without those role models, it could be the reverse, where a strong female character will allow the next generation to see the strength in their female teachers, coaches, and other leaders.

The celebrity-read Legend of Drizzt audio books changed my opinion on the medium... and they're totally friggin free!

When I was eight, my parents got me the audio book of The Phantom Menace novelization (back when we were calling them "books on tape".) In the fourteen years since, I haven't even thought about buying another. There have been candidates. When Neil Gaiman announced that the American Gods recording would feature a voice actor for each character, I was ecstatic. At the time,there hadn't been much news on the miniseries, so I figured it may be the only time I'd experience a performance of the story.

Audio books are anywheree between twenty to thirty bucks, which strikes me as too pricy for something I can't (legally) check out first for free. So when Audible announced they'd be releasing a collection of R.A. Salvatore's D&D stories, read by some of my favorite celebrites, at no charge for the first month, I hit download immediately. I've had about as much experience with Dungeons and Dragons as I have with audiobooks. I've always been interested in it, but never had friends willing to learn the rules (Oh boo hoo reading hurts the brain poor thing.) Without any real game experience, I was never motivated to go out and buy any books. Really, I downloaded the thing on a whim.

The stories were recorded by a really eclectic group. Nerd icons like Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day, celebrity nerd Al Yankovic, and Ice T, who admitted he was as confused by D&D lore as you would expect him to be, "Ya'know this guy got a talking sword. It's interesting." Greg Grunberg, David Duchovney, Sean Astin , Melissa Rauch, Dan Harmon, Michael Chiklis, Tom Felton and Danny Pudi also lent their voices to the project. I strongly suggest you check the stories out, especially if, like me, you've never really experienced the audiobook medium. You can downloaded the stories here, either individually or in two parts, each running a few hours long.

Guardians of the Galaxy: The Best and Worst of What We've Seen

Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel's "Cosmic-level" team movie starring Chis Pratt, Bradley Cooper and a giant tree, is due out in a few months. Of the first trailer and various character vignettes that have been released, my opinion of how the movie may turn out has been mostly-positive, but still mixed. Below is a list of five impressions, negative and positive, from the previews currently available.

1. CHRIS PRATT

Although Pratt's character Peter Quill seems well-written, the tone he has given the character seems a bit too cartoonish for the MCU. To be fair, he has only been shown in humorous scenes, and it's possible he will deliver his more serious lines in a way that fits the live-action setting more appropriately.

Rating: Meh.

2. DAVE BATISTA AS DRAX

In the few scenes released of Drax, Dave Batista has had zero lines. So far, we have only seen him either kill things while looking menacing, or stand quietly while still managing to look menacing. It will be interesting to see how his character develops if he remains a purely physical character throughout the movie.

Rating: Not Good.

3. KAREN GILLAN IS SCARY

Fans of Doctor Who will either love or hate the dramatically different-looking Karen Gillan, who has actually shaven her head, on top of donning blue skin make-up and a cyborg-esque costume to play the very scary Nebula. Fans of Who will also remember that Gillan has done the scary badass thing for the sixth series finale. However, she was still playing a hero in that episode, so you've got to wonder if she's gonna ramp-up the badassery for the very villainous Nebula.

Rating: Awesome.

4. ROCKET RACCOON WORKS IN LIVE-ACTION

Since the GoG movie was announced, I have wondered if Rocket, the anthropomorphic raccoon who is also an alien, would work in a major film. This was less because he is a talking animal, and more that the rational viewers who will no doubt check the film out may not be willing to believe that there is an entire race of talking raccoons somewhere in the galaxy. It is an unlikely possibility, though one that I personally am okay with. Regardless, seeing Rocket (Voiced by Bradley Cooper) in the first trailer gave me hope that the adorable outlaw may appeal to a wider group than I initially thought.

Rating: Dope.

5. IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT SPACE SCOUNDRELS

I'm not familiar with the original Guardians of the Galaxy from the 70's, but my hope when this movie was announced was that it wouldn't try to be superheroes in space. What it seems to be instead is the Anti-Avengers (Anti-vengers?) It's got the super-freaks, the team tension, the villain who possesses a mystical, all-powerful item, but where 4 out of 5 Avengers were heroes before the movie was released, the Guardians all begin as outlaws.

So that's it. If you agree, disagree, or have any other thoughts about the movie, comment them. And subscribe for more comic book, sci-fi, or general movie news!

- Will

Michael Bay Ninja Turtles Project: Raph Is An Alcoholic! (Not Really, But Why Not?)

I used to watch the '89 TMNT when the early episodes re-aired in the mid to late 90's, and damn was it some good cartoons. TMNT, of course, is the text-message-abbreviation of 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' which, despite the myriad of bomb threats and assassination attempts on his life and family, Michael Bay is still making into a movie. The designs for the new turtles (who are now aliens but still referred to as mutants... kind of like Broo) were leaked today, and although they've been removed from major media outlets, a quick Google search will still bring up the grainy, off-centered images. I'll give you a second to find them, then we'll meet back here for farther assessment...

....

....

*cough*

....

NOW BEFORE YOU FREAK, JUST HEAR ME OUT! Yes, I know Raphael has a du-rag. Yes, I know Donatello has.... goggles?? But take a second to assess how bad that actually is. New fans can actually tell their asses apart by way of more than one, sometimes difficult to remember detail. Remember in thriller movies when the guy had to remember which colored wire to cut? I would be terrible at that. And I was terrible at remembering Ninja Turtles when I was a dumb, snotty youth.

Of course, what people are most upset at is that Michael Bay is directing the picture. "FUCKING MICHAEL BAY. Oh, he's so terrible. He made those movies I didn't like with the robots." What I've realized, though, is that he was totally out of his element with them robot flicks. The original Transformers show, and it's spin-offs, had a very serious vibe and complex mythology. But here was the director of Bad Boys trying to tell a story that was essentially Bad Boy Bots.

TMNT, on the other hand, is more in line with the silly, action-oriented Michael Bay style. Granted, it's a different kind of silly, but there's no doubt in my mind it will translate better to live action than whatever the hell the director of the 90's turtles movies was thinking.

Now you're with me.