I haven’t written in this space for quite some time.  Almost immeasurable time, really.  Mostly, I didn’t want to break the swift and sweeping momentum built up by Cas’ recent flurry of posts.  I figured they wouldn’t really benefit from an interjection about anime or some such topic.  However, now that the torrent has cooled to a slow simmer, the time may be nigh to emerge from the dark waters of silence and firmly reapply my stamp of authority on this site…with a post about anime.

I’m so sorry.

A week or so ago now – eight days to be exact; making this post almost irrelevant – I attended a limited two night only event at a theater near me.  To set the stage for this tale, we begin at a movie theater not unlike the one I went to for what I’m about to tell you, but unlike that movie theater because it wasn’t the same theater.  Anyway.  I went to see Iron Man a week or so after its release, fashionably late, and during one of the pre-pre-previews I saw a trailer for something I didn’t expect:  Death Note, the Live Action movie.

It caught me quite off guard because as a fan of things that hail from Japan, I generally don’t expect to see them anywhere near my movie theaters.  Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised.  The trailer informed me that two nights for a single time each night the first Live Action adaptation of the popular anime series, Death Note, would be playing at theaters across the country.  Banzai!

As soon as I remembered (about a week before the event), I bought early tickets to make sure I procured a seat.  The day came and myself and two cohorts made off for the show.  We arrived literally on time so we had to skip the confections and concessions.  As we made our way into the theater, I noticed the volume level was a little louder than typical for a waiting movie theater audience, but I ignored it paying more attention to my own excitement.

I was disappointed before even showing up to the theater finding out online earlier that day that the movie was to be shown dubbed.  I’m not sure why English companies feel they have to do this.  Ultimately, it is unnecessary.  If you are showing a movie that up until that point is exclusive to another country and based entirely off an anime series that has only just begun being shown on late-night American television, it would be safe to assume the people in attendance can endure subtitles, if not wholly endorse and prefer them.  If the dubbing had any merits, they did use the English voice actors from the anime series.  This provided a sense of continuity and familiarity at minimum.

The story of the film was excellent.  While it follows the beginning plot of the anime it is not strict in its execution.  Certain accepted liberties were taken and story elements were changed without hindering or tarnishing the original work.  In the end, it provided a brand new take on an established story and told the same crucial sequences of events in a fresh and compelling way creating a unique Death Note experience.

Looking past the dubbing, the actors presumably did a great job portraying the characters they were playing which I imagine from animation to live action is no easy task.  Their characteristics and behavior matched to the best of abilities.  Also, they nailed Ryuk, the first and main shinigami (death god) we meet in both stories.

The only thing about the whole evening which may have hindered or altogether ruined my experience were the other fans in the theater.  This seems to be a recurring theme.  I’m not sure if it is just a general life lesson that with any and all hobbies or events, there will always be a percentage of people who are complete fucking obnoxious assholes.  My assumption is yes, because I can’t imagine they are solely contained within my areas of interest.

Now, I know anime fans.  I know them all too well.  Unfortunately.  Across the board they are typically a genre of subhuman trolls whose remarkable lack of social prowess begs the question how they survived through life up until this point.  It is probably why I get looks of repulsion from others when I tell them of my hobby.  Granted, not all anime fans are like this, much like any other stereotype, but fuck; a lot of them are.

I would prefer not spending too much time on those who I hope I never meet again.  They did, however, spend the entirety of the film giggling and “creeing” and talking disruptively amongst each other.  Adding commentary when they saw fit and laughing at parts that merited no such laughter.  They were also cosplaying or dressed up as their favorite characters.  While I can respect and admire those willing to look the fool by being passionate about something, I do not extend the same feelings to these people.  They don’t deserve it.  A crying child with whooping cough is more hospitable.

All in all, the movie was pleasant and entertaining.  It took an anime series I deeply enjoy and enhanced it by viewing it through a different lens.  I would recommend watching it, preferably subtitled with the original Japanese audio mainly to eliminate the cheesy effect inherent in dubbing live action.  Since you will not be seeing it in a theater, you will not have to suffer through that which I did.  You are lucky.

A second movie, Death Note: The Last Name, has already been released overseas and will likely be making its way here through the same mediums the first did.  While seeing it on the big screen was a delight (parts of it anyway), I might just secure a way to watch it in the privacy of my home away from any screaming 15-year old high school girls dressed as Misa Misa.

Peace,
Kether

It is not ironic to criticize a critic. In fact, it’s down right banal. However, what I am going to do is attempt to constructively criticize Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad in a manner to which the site is probably not accustomed, namely with a focus on decency and rationality. Let me clear the air and say that I have no problem with judging other webcomics, and I think that this site could potentially be doing a great service to the admittedly few artists and authors who are able to take criticisms and use them to grow. What I take issue with is the way this blog goes about it.

My number one gripe is with the attitude taken towards webcomics and their fans. The name of the blog alone suggests a naked disgust for anyone who is not up to par with the standards of the contributors, whatever these standards might be. Another problem I have is with the proclivity for the term ‘fantards’ in reference to the loyal readers of these webcomics. While it might be true that some fans are irresponsive to sound judgment and react in a very undistinguished manner, such blanket terminology is not meant to surgically strike at this group, but anyone who disagrees with the arbitration of four critics. It is intentionally incendiary, and of the same nature as the title of the blog itself.

This tenor also carries over into the sort of wrathful hyperbole that litters each comic “review.” I put the word in quotes because the bombastic diatribes are little more than page after page of muckraking. I dislike some of the comics as much as the critics do, but even I, elitist as I may be on occasion, would not use a bazooka to kill a mosquito. From the few reviews I did manage to read in their entirety, I finished with a sense of feeling unwashed, or perhaps like I had just put cayenne pepper in my grandmother’s oatmeal. This is not doing a service to the community, which brings me to my next point.

Being intentionally offensive towards webcomics and their fans is not constructive, and no wonder the contributors receive so much animosity. When you dismiss any backlash as “a mighty wailing and gnashing of teeth from his whale-sized fantards” you are not opening avenues for discourse, you are alienating and bridge-burning. I don’t even read the webcomic that comment was about, but I found it offensive. People do tend to be fiercely loyal to their favorites, but as the author of a comic that probably would have received quite the mud-dragging-through from this site, I can tell you that the feeling is not only reciprocated, but very much appreciated. Overlooking some flaws or forgiving the occasional (or in our case, frequent) bad strip is part and parcel with reading amateur work, and without this relationship between creator and fan, most comics would never get off the ground. You begin doing it for yourself, but somewhere along the line it becomes a work for your loyal readers, and gladly, I might add.

I read a number of times on the blog about how inane the reactions to their work can be, and they even have a top ten list of most frequent fallacies. If you’re in the business of criticizing, you had better get used to some yourself, especially if you are not going to give the “fantards” or webcomics you are railing against any reason why your judgment has authority. There was a claim that people who criticize movies or video games do not receive such uproarious reactions. Bullshit. Everyone hates a critic, unless it is done with grace and tact, and by someone respected in their community. Ebert gets away with it because he has shown pointed criticism alongside praise, whereas most of the reviews on this blog are absurdly one-sided. He is also established, and has given people reason to think he is an objective and informed observer. I do not know the qualifications of the four contributors to YWBYSFB, but I know that they do claim to be informed and qualified.

If you won’t tell people what comics you like—i.e. what your standards are—then don’t expect them to think you have authority. If you hurl bile at fans, then don’t expect to receive anything but likewise in kind. If you do not compliment where it is due, and consistently attack the comic with ad hominem abuses against the author, then do not be surprised that they would be dismissive of you. I think the community could very much use honest criticism, but remember that the vast majority of webcomics are done by unpaid amateurs who are trying to be expressive and creative. Forgive them their flaws, as I am willing to forgive you yours, and you might find people more receptive to your criticism.

As a final note, if I find your attacks on Chugworth to be overly critical and unfair, it might be advisable to reconsider your approach.

–Casimir

Well, I thought that I had all but laid this debate to rest. After all, emo then vindicated Vader are the low points of the man’s villainy, whereas Smith’s least villainous moment is probably thanking Neo for setting him free, just before 50+ Smiths brawl with him. Case closed, I thought.

My opponent has done something I will admit I never saw coming: he argues that Darth Vader is a separate character from Anakin Skywalker. Now, this claim has the immediate appeal of sectioning off the undesirable side of the man that I am calling a pseudo-villain from the arguably more notorious Sith Lord instantiation. But seriously, two different characters? And my allegations were called “preposterous”?

Alright, let’s do this thing and do it quick. Not that I give two shits about how Vladimir Propp defines a villain, but a character is not defined in some arbitrary temporal void. Anakin/Vader is a singular consciousness—what Locke might define as a person—and I see no evidence to suggest multiple personalities or mental illness. This is evinced by the fact that both Anakin and Vader can access memories and emotions pursuant to the supposed “other character.” If the suggestion is that villainous acts are temporally relativized to unique individuals, then no villain would ever be equal to themselves in terms of identity. Hitler circa 1942≠Hitler circa 1895, since one committed villainous acts, whereas the other did not.

My opponent then suggests that perhaps Vader is not a person, but rather some amalgam of machine parts and sentience. That, and being under duress can influence personality to such a degree that we are no longer truly ourselves. If this last point is true, then Vader does not truly even exist. When someone commits a crime under duress, they are generally recused in some degree because it is understood that they acted outside of their own control. We do not say that they were someone else and then go on to attribute a villainous nature to their temporary alter ego. Either Vader=Anakin, or Vader does not exist and is therefore not a villain. If Vader is not a person because it is a cyborg/android, then one would have to make a case that Vader understood morality in order for his acts to be truly evil. It is made clear that Smith understands the difference between moral rights and wrongs, but he simply cannot stop himself. If Vader is not a person, but some robotic slave, then we cannot attribute moral praise or blame to him, hence he cannot be hero or villain.

As for Smith’s actual motivation for being evil, I might argue that he was not truly evil in the first Matrix film, just as Vader is not truly evil for being under the influence of the Emperor. Smith did evil acts, but they were not always acts of his choosing. Of course, he acted outside of his program (“What are you doing?”), and probably did relish more in the death of Neo than he was programmed to, but his release from his programming allowed him to revel in his evil nature. Regardless of his motivation for choosing evil, he chose it under no coercion. So much for the appeal to his agent cohorts as detracting from Smith’s evil. Questions of how many opponents Smith fought at a single time seem to me not only misleading, but erroneous, as I recall that Vader never fought more than one person at a time himself.

One final claim: It is suggested that Vader is a “tragic villain.” This is half right, in that his story is tragic, but Vader seen through the lens of time and not in the excerpt of Star Wars history that is Episodes 4-6 is actually a tragic hero. He has his noble beginnings, but rejects his previous life because of his own hubris, and eventually faces a major trial in which he has to choose between his power and pride and the love of his son. His heroic choice costs him his own life, but redeems him and brings him to grace. It can be argued that the sum total of his life adds up to more villainy than heroism, but not if it is understood that Vader is but a puppet, and the true impetus of villainy originates from the Emperor.

It is done.

–Casimir

So, the Mistress and I received our Economic Stimulus payments in the mail recently, which amounts to $600 between the two of us. I know I should be excited about this and be singing the praises of the Bush administration and the great American economy. After all, they gave me money! Free money! Here is why I’m not.

$300 per person? That’s supposed to stimulate the economy? Let me tell you, when gas is at $3.85 a gallon and I live in an area with almost no public transportation infrastructure, that money will not last beyond a few trips to the local petroleum station. I, like most Americans, will not be out at the malls with hands in the air shrieking at the opportunity to reinvest in American goods and services. I will pay off some debts or recurring costs and then attempt to save the rest. Likewise, the weakness of the American dollar and the absurdity of the inflation rate and cost of living versus the relative stagnation of real wages means this money is not the godsend the upper ups thought it would be. I am not greeting them as financial liberators, is what I’m saying.

Sure, it is nice to receive money in the mail, but it is by no means free money and is not going to create the windfall of prosperity the administration believes it will. I am not an economist, but it is not hard to see that when people don’t have jobs, access to education, and decent wages/living conditions, this money will not be doing them much good. “Oh, I can pay half of one month’s rent, I’m saved!” And really, the money is just our tax dollars being redistributed anyway, so really we just paid ourselves the money. In addition, if the economy is still hurting, they just subtract the money we received from what we would get back on taxes next year.

I guess what I’m saying is, WHOOO! FREE MONEY! I’M GOING TO GO SPLURGE AND IGNORE THE CRIPPLING FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT BOTH I AND MY CHILDREN WILL BE IN BECAUSE OF CRIMINALLY POOR MANAGEMENT OF OUR COUNTRY BY THE FUCKTARDS WHO EXPECT ME TO SHIT MYSELF OVER SOME PIDDLY AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WON’T EVEN OFFSET THE SPIKING PRICES OF FOOD!

–Casimir

Let that be a lesson to all of the kids out there who ever wish to praise a film: you will always hear in the background the faint cry of your detractors in unison insisting “Star Wars was better!” I did indeed cast a gauntlet, and the challenge has been met. Alas, my opponent has made it too easy by selecting Darth Vader as the competitor. If you are too lazy to read the actual post, I will sum it up for you here.

1) Argumentum ad populum- AFI says Darth Vader is on their top 100 villains list. Smith wasn’t even nominated. Also, if you look at Darth Vader’s helmet, most people will recognize it as a universal symbol of villainy.

2) Red herring- Vader destroyed entire planets and ruled the galaxy.

3) Scarecrow- Smith in the first film is no match for Vader in films 4-6.

4) Insanity- Vader is the best villain ever, no contest.

I will address these objections point by point, and then move to my final conclusion against Vader.

1) By That Guy’s own admission, the AFI is not the overlord of judgment (if the shark from Jaws is on your list of top villains, you are not appreciating what a villain is in my opinion, a case which I may be forced to make elsewhere). In addition, Vader probably is more recognized as a symbol of villainy, but Star Wars has also been around for 31 years. The Matrix isn’t even ten years old. Besides, I’ve already asserted that popularity is not the judge of villainy.

2) Vader the man did very little other than play the role of the Emperor’s right hand and all around bully. Yes, he controlled a massive clone army that destroyed planets, but Vader himself did not do the destroying, nor was he responsible for the creation or absolute control of the army. He was the Emperor’s puppet, a role which he played well. Smith was an agent of the system, but nowhere was he more evil than once he was unleashed from his bondage. Vader’s evil was a result of his subservience to a greater master. Also, might I add that a sizeable contingent of this great clone army was defeated by a bunch of fucking Ewoks?

3) It seems a bit selective to say that we’re only allowed to discuss the first Matrix and that we can ignore Star Wars 1-3, especially since my arguments were made utilizing the saga of the Matrix as a whole. That being said, let’s compare Darth Vader circa episodes 1-6 vs Smith circa the trilogy.

Darth Vader begins as an emo young superstar Jedi who, like Rodney Dangerfield, feels he gets no respect. His transformation to evil comes about when he is lured to the dark side by the promises of power and immortality, which he cloaks in some thin motive to save his wife (if I recall correctly). He then mulls around a bit, whining and pouting, before eventually killing the very wife he was supposed to be saving—by accident—and then unleashes the infamous “NOOOOO!”

Years pass and he gets darker as the empire grows. At one point, his coveted Death Star is blown apart by small bands of rebels and he is sent hurling into space. He rages back, only to again be defeated by his own son, at which point he remembers he really does have a heart, and kills his old master. In what is possibly the biggest detractor of his villainy, a sonorous black man’s voice is needed to enhance his dark character, as he is in reality a shriveled old white man, mechanized and sporting a cape.

Smith, on the other hand, is evil from the very beginning. He is coded to be the enforcement agency for the Matrix, but proves to have an even greater hate for humans than his agent counterparts. He carries out his role by killing the first instantiation of The One “with a certain satisfaction, I might add.” After being reborn as a replicating virus, he begins to terrorize humans and programs alike, not just killing them, but assimilating them mind and body into his massive replicated army. At the point where he is about to assimilate his own “mother,” he shows his delight in the destruction of an exiled child.

Oracle: What did you do with Sati?

Assimilated Sati/Smith: Cookies need love like everything does.

Smiths in unison: Hmm hmm hmm!

Oracle: You are a bastard.

Smith is not a tortured adolescent who grows up to be the boy toy of a malevolent dictator. He is written to be evil itself, and takes this objective to a new level. He engages the protagonists in the Matrix by elucidating what is wrong about the human race and why they should be obliterated. He quests for meaning once he is defeated, and concludes that the purpose of life is to end. He destroys because he believes that is the thing to do, not in some vainglorious attempt to wield power. He is defeated only because The One commits suicide and allows himself to be assimilated. Smith probes evil on a philosophical rather than egotistical level, and he does so with grandiloquence (entirely in the voice of Hugo Weaving, I might add).

4) Does it really seem plausible to say there is no contest now?

I am willing to entertain more arguments for Vader as the best villain (and I do feel that he is probably the best candidate to topple Smith), but I would need evidence that Vader is not just a powerful pawn who is manipulated and confused. Bear in mind that Vader is vindicated by his final heroic act and receives his place among the elite, good Jedi in the afterlife. Smith never relents, never shows remorse, and never stops. He must be destroyed in order for his evil reign to end. He is a villain from beginning to end, through and through, balls to bones, as the Oracle would say.

I rest my case.

–Casimir