It's amazing the things that hit you when you wake up at 4 AM. I've long wondered why the minority figures in Marvel Comics, the Mutants, have not gone on to gain acceptance like many other minority groups have over the years. It never made sense to me that the Mutants were always on the outside and that the majority "hated and feared them". Heck, some of the Avengers have been Mutants (before EVERYONE was an Avenger) and that didn't help them at all.
Then, it hit me. Mutants may have started out as the representatives of oppressed minority groups, but they haven't moved forward like those groups. What came to me this morning was that Mutants are now the representatives of firearms in the United States.
Think about it. You have the X-Men, who represent the responsible gun owners. They train themselves so as to know when and when not to use their abilities, as well as how to use them most effectively with the least amount of collateral damage. Sometimes they go too far or do the wrong thing, but most of the time they're in the right.
Then you have the "Evil Mutants", led by Magneto or some other "freedom fighter", who are willing to do whatever it takes to overthrow the government that is taking away their rights. They're on the fringe, and represent a minority of the larger group, but they're the most vocal and can be the most violent.
A bigger portion of the group, but still not the majority of it, are criminals. Those that a "mutant registration act" won't help with since they're going to break the law anyway. They are willing to use their abilities to get what they want, no matter who gets hurt.
This brings us to probably the most dangerous part, and that would be the untrained children. No, they aren't, necessarily, out to hurt anyone, but they have access to a power that they don't understand and could end up killing someone if they are left to their own devices. Responsible parents of these children will get them training and see that they know how to handle and respect their abilities, but that isn't everyone. The worst case scenario here is a student who is picked on and then decides to take their revenge indiscriminately.
I could be completely off base here, but I think this explains why the Mutant cause never seems to gain any ground. There are more people out there who are unwilling to accept firearms than there are who are unwilling to accept minorities, at least in my opinion. What do you think? Am I on to something or completely missing the target?
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Retroactive Continuity - Good vs Bad
Today the word "Retcon", which is short for "Retroactive Continuity", is treated as something that is always bad. This isn't really the case, and wasn't when the term first came into use. The first use of the term, with regard to comics, was in All-Star Squadron #18 (February 1983), where Roy Thomas used it to describe how he was interweaving the stories in All-Star Squadron with the original, Golden-Age stories. This was not, necessarily, to alter the originals, but was used to say that the current stories were taking place in between the original adventures.
In my opinion, when done well, this is a great way to pay homage to the past while still telling new stories. Roy Thomas is a master of this type of story-telling, but there were others that were equally as able to tell stories like this.
More recently, though, the term "retcon" has come to mean that a creator didn't like something that was done in the past, so they write a story to either explain it away, or change the original intent. Personally, I would much rather that whatever it was just wasn't mentioned rather than going out of your way to change something. Oh, there are times that it can work, but more often than not you end up with someone that liked the original concept changing it back and muddying everything.
I'm much more favorable towards reboots that retconing (in the non-Thomas way) an existing series, especially when you have a concept that already works well. But it has to be a hard reboot, ala Man of Steel, and not a soft/non-existent reboot, like any Batman or Green Lantern one you could name.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
In my opinion, when done well, this is a great way to pay homage to the past while still telling new stories. Roy Thomas is a master of this type of story-telling, but there were others that were equally as able to tell stories like this.
More recently, though, the term "retcon" has come to mean that a creator didn't like something that was done in the past, so they write a story to either explain it away, or change the original intent. Personally, I would much rather that whatever it was just wasn't mentioned rather than going out of your way to change something. Oh, there are times that it can work, but more often than not you end up with someone that liked the original concept changing it back and muddying everything.
I'm much more favorable towards reboots that retconing (in the non-Thomas way) an existing series, especially when you have a concept that already works well. But it has to be a hard reboot, ala Man of Steel, and not a soft/non-existent reboot, like any Batman or Green Lantern one you could name.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Thursday, March 3, 2016
The Unified Theory of Santa Claus
(Editor's Note: This post appeared on "Hold Your Hammer High" on Tuesday, but I thought that it would work here, too.)
I figured that I'd write up something that I told my daughter this past holiday season. You never know, this might just be useful to some of you parents out there. It concerns Santa and how he operates. I freely admit that some of this isstolen borrowed for the great comic series Fables, mainly how Santa makes it to each house.
Here's how it goes:
Santa is magical and doesn't need to stop at each individual house one after the other. He actually creates duplicates of himself and they are what travels to each house. Each house has it's own Santa, and that one is customized for the household.
So, if you have a house in the United States, Santa is dressed in the familiar red with white trim (thank you Coca Cola). If the house in in the United Kingdom, then Santa looks like Father Christmas. Along these same lines, if the house has a white family, then the Santa is white. If it's a black family, then Santa is black, and so on.
No, the guys in the malls, town halls, museums, or where-ever you go to meet Santa aren't really him, but they are, in fact, his helpers. These men (and women, where Mrs. Claus is around) have a direct line to Santa and they tell him what each child said to them. So, while the child is not really talking to Santa, Santa will know what was said.
Even though he doesn't require a chimney to enter a house (remember, he's magic), Santa does need permission. This permission can come in several forms. The one our family uses is something called a "Santa Key" that we leave outside on the door knob. Santa uses this to enter the house and he then hangs it on the tree.
So, there you have it. My unified theory of Santa Claus that, I think, helps explain some of the "unexplainable" things about him. Feel free to adopt or adapt this for your own use, and please let me know how it works for you.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
I figured that I'd write up something that I told my daughter this past holiday season. You never know, this might just be useful to some of you parents out there. It concerns Santa and how he operates. I freely admit that some of this is
Here's how it goes:
Santa is magical and doesn't need to stop at each individual house one after the other. He actually creates duplicates of himself and they are what travels to each house. Each house has it's own Santa, and that one is customized for the household.
So, if you have a house in the United States, Santa is dressed in the familiar red with white trim (thank you Coca Cola). If the house in in the United Kingdom, then Santa looks like Father Christmas. Along these same lines, if the house has a white family, then the Santa is white. If it's a black family, then Santa is black, and so on.
No, the guys in the malls, town halls, museums, or where-ever you go to meet Santa aren't really him, but they are, in fact, his helpers. These men (and women, where Mrs. Claus is around) have a direct line to Santa and they tell him what each child said to them. So, while the child is not really talking to Santa, Santa will know what was said.
Even though he doesn't require a chimney to enter a house (remember, he's magic), Santa does need permission. This permission can come in several forms. The one our family uses is something called a "Santa Key" that we leave outside on the door knob. Santa uses this to enter the house and he then hangs it on the tree.
So, there you have it. My unified theory of Santa Claus that, I think, helps explain some of the "unexplainable" things about him. Feel free to adopt or adapt this for your own use, and please let me know how it works for you.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Realism in Comics
I've been thinking, recently, about the term "realism" as it applies to comics and comic book properties. Now there are some genres where being more realistic. The Walking Dead (if you remove the whole zombie thing) or Strangers in Paradise only work with realistic portrayals of humans and technology. Superheroes don't, regardless of who the publisher is. Any genre where a man who dresses as a bat in order to fight criminals, and isn't immediately shot, has no basis in reality.
Don't get me wrong, I love it when superhero comics use real science or technology to solve a problem, and especially when they explain it to the reader. However, basing your whole comic/movie/tv show around a "realistic portrayal" of a superhero concept is just inherently flawed to me. It's kind of like the most common complaint of Alex Ross that I hear, which is his portrayal of Batman is "too realistic" since it literally is just a man in a suit.
"Then you must not like any superhero movies, since they are all just men in Halloween costumes," you're probably saying. Nope. In fact, when you have a movie that embraces the genre, rather than feeling the need to explain every single thing, it makes for a more enjoyable experience. Since we're on the subject of a rich man running around in his PJ's, let's look at two different movie versions.
Batman (1989) starring Michael Keaton presented Batman as already being around with minimal origin story flashbacks. The Batcave, Batmobile, Batwing, and all the utility belt objects have been developed before the movie. No time is taken, except for a brief scene during the party, to explain where any of this came from.
Batman Begins (2005) starring Christian Bale, spends almost the first half of the movie, after an origin story, explaining where and how Bruce Wayne gets all of his equipment, costume, vehicle, and headquarters. Every piece of it has to be explained, to the point of having a conversation about dummy corporations purchasing two halves of the mask.
Both are good films and I could watch each one at any time, but I enjoy Batman much more than Batman Begins, simply for the fact that it doesn't feel the need to explain what doesn't need explaining. I've already accepted the premise that a man is dressing up as a bat, you don't need to go any further.
That's probably why I like the Marvel Studios films more than just about any other superhero movie, because they accept the comic book world that they are playing in and fully embrace it. Heck, they even made Batroc The Leaper a good character!
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
![]() |
Yes, Batman is basically a man in a Halloween costume. It looks alright in a comic form, though. |
![]() |
Alex Ross and his "too real" Batman. |
Batman (1989) starring Michael Keaton presented Batman as already being around with minimal origin story flashbacks. The Batcave, Batmobile, Batwing, and all the utility belt objects have been developed before the movie. No time is taken, except for a brief scene during the party, to explain where any of this came from.
Batman Begins (2005) starring Christian Bale, spends almost the first half of the movie, after an origin story, explaining where and how Bruce Wayne gets all of his equipment, costume, vehicle, and headquarters. Every piece of it has to be explained, to the point of having a conversation about dummy corporations purchasing two halves of the mask.
Both are good films and I could watch each one at any time, but I enjoy Batman much more than Batman Begins, simply for the fact that it doesn't feel the need to explain what doesn't need explaining. I've already accepted the premise that a man is dressing up as a bat, you don't need to go any further.
That's probably why I like the Marvel Studios films more than just about any other superhero movie, because they accept the comic book world that they are playing in and fully embrace it. Heck, they even made Batroc The Leaper a good character!
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Podcast in 2015
The other day I went over to the Two True Freaks website and checked out the download numbers of the podcasts that I'm involved in. When I looked at the compiled numbers, I was floored. Just in 2015, the episodes of my shows were downloaded over 9,000 times! (9,127 to be exact.)
Here's the breakdown by show and by episode:
The Hammer Podcasts!
Episode 1 - Star Trek - 174
Episode 2 - Comic Books - 164
Episode 3 - Mythology - 189
Episode 4 - Feedback - 185
Episode 5 - Changes - 196
Episode 6 - The Greek Gods - 210
Episode 7 - Role-Playing Games - 216
Episode 8 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture - 261
Episode 9 - A Christmas Carol - 270
Episode 10 - Son of Feedback - 327
Episode 11 - Star Wars Rebels - 343
Episode 12 - Conway's Corner - 354
Episode 13 - Norse Mythology - 291
Episode 14 - Zorro, The Gay Blade - 273
Episode 15 - Cartoon TV Themes - 262
Episode 16 - The Muppets - 174
Legends of the Superheroes
Swamp Thing - 172
Batman - 197
The Incredible Hulk - 66
Green Lantern - 271
The Crow - 274
Reb Brown - 296
The Quantum Cast
Episode 1 - Quasar #1 & #2 - 303
Episode 2 - Marvel 2-in-1 #73 - 295
Episode 3 - Quasar #3 - 298
Episode 4 - Quasar #4 - 273
Episode 5 - Quasar #5 - 237
Episode 6 - Quasar #6 - 220
Comic Book Fight Club
Galactus vs Unicron - 308 (These people can be forgiven, since they didn't know what they were getting into)
Hulk vs Doomsday - 286 (Everyone from here down is a horrible person for knowing what they were listening to and coming back anyway)
Suicide Squad vs A-Team - 226
TMNT vs Thundercats - 141
Anime Freaks
Episode 1 - Star Blazers Monthly Monday - 150
Episode 2 - Nova Stalkers - 122
Episode 3 - Star Blazers: In Character - 117
Episode 4 - Pluto Destruction Directive- 50
Episode 5 - We Will Be Regular! - 129
Episode 6 - Project Spata-Ro - 136
Episode 7 - Skype Wants Nothing To Do With This - 180
Episode 8 - Creeeepy Robot - 156
Episode 9 - he's Not Heavy, He's My Sandor - 115
Episode 10 - Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me! - 109
Episode 11 - You're Going To Put That Where?!?! - 111
So the point of all this is for me to say a huge "Thank You!" to everyone who has listened to my ramblings on the internet. Stay tuned, there's more stuff on the way, including a new series that's in the works.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Labels:
Anime Freaks,
podcast,
Quasar,
Two True Freaks
Thursday, February 11, 2016
The Great Experiment
![]() |
Like the Falcon when Lando's done, we don't have a dish anymore. |
Now, I'm not a huge sports guy. I watch the occasional sporting event, if I'm in the mood, so those that absolutely MUST follow their team might not want to try this. However, if you are willing to deal with limited broadcast TV and already have streaming services, then I would highly recommend this. Get yourself an indoor HD antenna and you might just find some interesting sub-channels out there.
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Robin Hood
One of my favorite old movies is "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn, among others. Not, it's not super accurate, historically, but then neither is Robin Hood.
I do love the music, which gets stuck in my head for days after watching it. It's got a great rousing theme but also some nice comedic beats when the mood needs lightening.
Something that you'll notice in this, however, is that Robin is not flawless. He loses to both Little John and Friar Tuck (more of a tie, really) in their initial meetings, and it's through those interactions that they decide to join him. He didn't win and thereby showed him as the superior, but he managed to win them over through personality and the fact that he's already famous.
One thing I truly love about the film is the depth of the casting. You have Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone (relishing playing the villain), Claude Rains, and Alan Hale (Senior, not Junior), among a host a character actors. Everyone gives it their all, and it makes for a great, and fun, film. Don't just take my word for it, though, why not watch it for yourself?
The Adventures Of Robin Hood (1938) by FilmGorillas
Rob Kelly was nice enough to have me on The Film and Water Podcast to discuss this movie, so you can hear more of my thoughts over there: http://bit.ly/1RZUj1L
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
I do love the music, which gets stuck in my head for days after watching it. It's got a great rousing theme but also some nice comedic beats when the mood needs lightening.
Something that you'll notice in this, however, is that Robin is not flawless. He loses to both Little John and Friar Tuck (more of a tie, really) in their initial meetings, and it's through those interactions that they decide to join him. He didn't win and thereby showed him as the superior, but he managed to win them over through personality and the fact that he's already famous.
One thing I truly love about the film is the depth of the casting. You have Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone (relishing playing the villain), Claude Rains, and Alan Hale (Senior, not Junior), among a host a character actors. Everyone gives it their all, and it makes for a great, and fun, film. Don't just take my word for it, though, why not watch it for yourself?
The Adventures Of Robin Hood (1938) by FilmGorillas
Rob Kelly was nice enough to have me on The Film and Water Podcast to discuss this movie, so you can hear more of my thoughts over there: http://bit.ly/1RZUj1L
=========================
Like what I'm doing here on the blog and podcast? Why not check out my Patreon Page to see how you can help me do more? http://www.patreon.com/TheHammerStrikes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)