Green Lantern: The Animated Series (Pilot Review)

It’s really hard for me not to be emotionally tied to the success or failure of this franchise. I suppose a little context is needed: I’m a huge fan of superhero comics. One of my favorite books as both a kid, and now as an adult has to beGreen Lantern. I always wished that the property would expand beyond the comic books, but sadly the travesty that was the 2011 Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie taught me to be careful what I wish for. But lo and behold! Mayhaps this cloud has a silver lining after all…

When Tim Burton’s Batman film was released in 1989, Warner Brothers made an animated series to be released alongside the feature to further expose the character to the world and increase the character’s already incredible popularity. The show, produced by Bruce Timm, was simply called Batman: The Animated Series, and it was a massive critical and commercial hit. Personally speaking, it’s probably the best superhero cartoon ever produced, and I dare even call it one of the best animated series of all time. (Totally high praise. I know.) The success of that series led to numerous other DC cartoons, includingSuperman: The Animated Series and Justice League. All were tied in continuity wise with each other and were produced by Timm, making what fans affectionally call the “Timmverse.” Now with Green Lantern arguably more popular now than he ever has been, it only seemed logical to release an animated series of his very own, entitled Green Lantern: The Animated Series. So how is it? Is it as good as the Batman epiosdes of yesteryear, or is it worse than the live action movie?

…ok, I’ll save you some time with that last question. It’s better than the movie, but that’s not really hard to do.

I suppose I have to address the elephant in the room first. This is the first Bruce Timm/DC animated project that is fully done in CG. I don’t really know why. Maybe it’s cheeper to do CG than traditional animation, or maybe they wanted a more “modern” look. It doesn’t really matter why they used it, cause either way it’s here to stay. And I hate it. I wish I didn’t, but to me this art style looks either one of two ways: ugly or boring. Which is odd, cause you can clearly tell that the characters are still designed in that signature Bruce Timm angular, geometric style that I loved so much in previous shows. I guess it just shows that there certainly are strengths and weaknesses in both CG and traditional animation, and what works in one doesn’t always work in the other. It’s incredible how in 2D this art style looks bold and dynamic, yet in CG it looks flat and lifeless.

This is the same criticism I have with the current CG Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series, in which they adapted Genndy Tartakovsky’s character design from the other (and frankly, better) animated series, which was 2D. I see nothing wrong with stylized human characters in CG, but unless you have a high level of detail on par with The Incredibles (which I’m sure would cost much, much more,) the characters will just look too plain and dull. The shininess of the character models doesn’t help either. I want to feel like I’m watching a show about super-powered space cops, but I feel like I’m watching a show about action figures that think they are super-powered space cops. And let’s be honest, Buzz Lightyear did that already.

Ok, ok. Enough raggin’ about the art style. Cause if the show has a solid script, I can at least look past that and enjoy the show on some level. With that said, the hour long pilot episode of the show, entitled Beware My Power, is…not bad. It’s not at the same level of quality as past DC cartoons yet, but it definitely has some potential. Our hero, Hal Jordan, is perfectly characterized here, displaying both his cocky atitude and his hard pressed stubbornness in full force. Also, one of my favorite characters, the tough as nails Kilowog, looks to be a central character in the series, (thankfully making up for his lack of screen time in the feature film.) They even planted the seeds for some very interesting backstory with Kilowog revolving around the tragedy that happened with his home planet.

However, even with the story, they made some very interesting, somewhat questionable, decisions. For one, this show clearly is built on a complete overarching plot. While some of Timm’s past DC works have an underlying, ongoing plot (Justice League comes to mind) most of the episodes were singular “one and done” adventures. It’s by no means a bad thing, but it is different than what I was expecting. Time will tell if it will pay off. I also don’t know if this series is tied into the “Timmverse” at all ( being the only DC show done in CG,) but I sure hope it is. How awesome would it be for Hal Jordan to eventually meet up with other cosmic DC characters like Lobo, the New Gods, or even Superman?

Speaking of over arching plot, now might be a good time to introduce the overarching villains of the show. The franchises’ main over arching villain, Sinestero, looks to be absent from this series in any form, possibly cause the movie wanted to have first dibs on the character if they ever decide (God forbid) to do a sequel, so instead we have the Red Lanterns. Looks like it’s time for MORE CONTEXT!

The Red Lanterns are still a relatively new group of villains in the Green Lantern comics. They are a rage-fueled version of the Green Lantern Corp, who are characterized as being violent and vengeful beasts. In the comics, the Red Lanters mostly act like mindless monsters except for their leader, Atrocitus, who has a personal vendetta against the Green Lanterns. The biggest change made is that all Red Lanterns now have the ability to think, talk and reason with each other clearly. They are also substantially less violent than their comic counterparts; they don’t even do their signature move of vomiting a napalm-like blood (yeah, comics are both weird and badass.) This does make the concept of “rage incarnate” villains feel a little neutered by comparison. I understand that some changes had to be made to make the show “kid friendly,” but without being mindless, angry monsters the Red Lanterns feel much more generic as villains. They don’t really have that spark that makes them unique. But again, it might be too early to judge. The writers might have something planed with the villains, particularly Atrocitus, that could be very entertaining.

All in all, the pilot wasn’t bad. I know that doesn’t sound like a glowing recommendation, but it does look like a show that has room to grow. There are some odd choices put into place so far (the choice to go CG being the biggest of the bunch,) but if you look past that, there might end up being a good show here. Only time will tell if Timm and his team will take advantage of the wealth of great stories and characters that DC’s history has to offer. I can only hope that this will be a good introduction to the Green Lantern universe for new audiences and hopefully new fans. It’s too early to say, but I’ll be watching closely and hoping the best.

No evil shall escape my sight.

- Moo

Me-ouch: Sexuality in Animation

Let’s be honest; most of North America still considers animation to be a medium designed only for kids. Now, truth be told, many shows have begun to change that notion, but that’s mainly due to wacky adult themed comedies, such as The Simpsons or Family Guy. If you want to find a mature-rated, animated drama or action flick from North America, then you’d have to dig into the more obscure end of the spectrum with the likes of Spawn or The Maxx or something equally packed with the overly extreem darkness of 90s counterculture.

So why is that? Can’t there be a mainstream action animated series that’s both geared to adults and that’s slightly less dark than a goth going to a funeral? Well of course there can, but there’s a lot of preconceived notions and problems about the animation industry that one has to overcome to make that a possibility. One of which was brought to the forefront of my attention after viewing DC Showcase: Catwoman. And that issue is how sexuality is portrayed in animation. It’s a big issue, and I can’t cover everything there is to cover about it in one blog post, but let’s just briefly dip our heels into the topic with our good ol’ friend, Miss Kitty here. 

This particular 15 minute short was packaged with the animated film, Batman: Year One (which I reviewed yesterday.) This isn’t a full on review of the short, but basically what happens is Catwoman tracks down the bad guys to a strip club, performs on a stripper poll with her cat suit zippered down to a level where her boobs defied physics by staying where they were, all essentially to distract the leering baddies into a boner induced daze just to surprise attack them with her whip. A chase ensues with Catwoman doing some pretty wicked action, as she (and her skin tight, tantalizingly ripped cat suit) take a beating, but eventually she is victorious, and there’s even a pretty touching moment as we all realize what Catwoman’s been fighting for this whole time. I should say by the end of the short, I did enjoy myself. But something bugged me. I mean, I’m not saying I have anything against Catwomen showin’ off her milk jugs (I am your typical male comic fan in their 20s. This thing was practically made for me!) But for crying out loud, give it some context! Make it important to the narrative! 

I get that Catwoman has always been a sexually charged character. And I have nothing against that, when it’s done in a compelling way. Which it isn’t here. The bad guys were already distracted with the strip show. They wouldn’t have even noticed Catwoman if she snuck up behind them. But the film was determined to have that Catwoman pole dancing scene. Why? Two simple words: fan service. It’s a safe bet, pandering to the fans who already like Catwoman. So it’s pretty clear who the target demographic is here, but what about those who just now decided to give the character of Catwoman a shot? Would this be intriguing at all? No. It’s just shallow sex appeal.

The problem with these kind of portrails (at the expense of plot and character development) is that, while tantalizing, it’s pretty immature. It’s like a pre-teen boy just discovering what sex is, and he feels the need draw boobs all over his homework. And when animation is struggling already to be regarded as something more than just “kid’s stuff,” being immature is the last thing it should be. 

There is a right way to show sexuality in animation. Sticking with DC, take for example their Wonder Woman animated dvd (directed by Lauren Montgomery, who shockingly also directed this Catwoman short…go figure…) Wonder Woman is shown in skimpy costumes, but it helps define her, coming from a culture where she says they take pride in their bodies and she actually doesn’t understand why she should cover herself up. It shows she’s confident in who she is, and that she’s very detached from the social norms of the modern world. It’s interesting. It’s sexy. And it’s a big character moment for her. European animation and anime also seem to have a better grasp on how to portray sexuality competently in animation, but that’s more of a cultural diference there (something else I’d like to examine in the future.)

All in all, if western animation hopes to make more shows and films that are geared towards adults, it needs to show sex as the complex issue that it is. It needs to treat adult matter like adults and not pander to the lowest of thrills. Otherwise you’re just watching drawn tits and ass jiggle around, and if you want that you should just go all out and watch some hentai. At least then you knowyou’re watching something shallow that’s supposed to lack any real complex narrative and emotional depth. But for others, I can only hope that we can make some progress in the future.

…some sexy, sexy progress…

- Moo

Batman: Year One (A review)

Warner Brothers Animation has such a rich and prospering relationship with DC Comics. Throughout the years they’ve picked every nook and cranny of the DC universe, exploring every obscure character and cherished storyline. Since fans of comics nowadays get their does of superheroism from graphic novel trades, WB has responded to these easy to digest “one and done” stories with a series of direct to DVD films. Most of these are based on best selling graphic novels. That being said, Batman: Year One is a pretty safe bet. It’s a animated adaptation of one of the most critically acclaimed comics staring undoubtedly DC’s most marketable character. While Batman’s origins have already been done on film twice (animated in Batman: Mask of Phantasm and live action in Batman Begins) this is what many Bat-fans regard as Batman’s true origin, and indeed both those movies borrowed heavily from what was presented in Year One. 

So? How is it?

Well, if you’ve read the book before, let me save you a little time here: it’s word for word the same. The original book was written by Frank Miller, love him or hate him. (I still can’t forgive him for The Spirit.) Yes, I rolled my eyes once I knew we were in for the noir-esque narrations and hyper-masculine treatment Miller forces on all his works, but as I watched it, I remembered that this was back when Frank Miller was an actual competent writer. (IE, not every female character had to be a whore….I mean…there are whores in this, but not every girl is a…you know what, you get the point…) The story’s mostly about Jim Gordon, with Batman having much less screen time. It’s actually a great way to observe the whole Batman concept from an outsider’s view, while still being very connected to Bruce Wayne’s exploits as Batman. The gritty story of a corrupt police department and Gordon’s fight against crime, crooked cops and having this vigilante swooping in dressed as a bat is a joy with each triumphant set piece. 

And as usual for these WB/DC projects, the voice casting is pretty much spot on. Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad and Malcolm in the Middle fame) is a perfect fit for Jim Gordon, bringing the weight and pressure this character truly needs. Other notable voices include Alex Rocco as the mobster Carmine Falcone, and Jon Polito as the corrupt Commissioner Loeb. Really, the only voice I didn’t really dig was Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben McKenzie,) but maybe it’s cause WB’s done so many Bat-projects with so many Bat-voices over the years, and it’s hard to ever get a Bat-voice better than the original animated series’ Kevin Conroy. I know this is supposed to be a younger Bruce Wayne, but his voice still didn’t strike that fear that it should. 

The animation is also great and really smooth. David Mazzucchelli did the art on the original graphic novel, whose rough and expressive art style would be near imposible to translate to animation. Nevertheless, they still did a stellar job with the art style to bring some of the original flare from the book to life. Little design choices like character’s beady eyes and Gordon’s shimmering glasses really go a long way. The storyboards are also great, but much like the film adaptation of Miller’s Sin City, Batman: Year One borrows pretty much shot for shot from the graphic novel. This really helps the film have some great dynamic moments, playing off a lot of light, shadow and negative space. It’s all cool, and I like it…so why can’t I shake the feeling I’ve seen this all before?  

Probably because I have. 

Listen, it’s so easy for an animation to take the script and panels of a comic and use that as a storyboard. That’s pretty much what a storyboard is already, right? So I’m not faulting the animation team on doing just that, especially when you have such great source material to work with. I’m not calling the animation team lazy, but I am calling it safe. It’s a safe bet, and that, in itself, is exactly what this movie is. It’s safe. Which isn’t bad, but it also isn’t very fresh. Hell, even if you haven’t read the book, Batman’s origin isn’t exactly unexplored territory at this point. Spoiler alert: his parents are dead.

I liked this movie. It was fun, dark, and had all the right emotional beats at the right time. It looked great, and sounded great. So despite my ramblings of deja view, I recommend both those who have and haven’t read the book to give this movie a go. Maybe I’m just an old, bitter nerd suffering from a little bat-fatigue, but when you get down to it, this was a solid flick. I just hope DC and WB’s next dvd endever could perhaps be something a little less known. Cause the people working on these movies are insanely talented! I’d love to see them tackle something a little more challenging and give the ol’ Batty a rest for a bit.

Maybe try… Animal Man?



Who am I kiddin’! That’d be to awesome to ever happen.

- Moo