Superhero Media: Loki - Season 1

Ok, I'm starting to get a little worried over here. Now again, I'm writing this in August 2021, a few days before Shiang Shi and The Ten Rings drops and months away from Spider-Man No Way Home, but it looks pretty much like we're getting an MCU Multiverse. Now, I'm not against a superhero multiverse in concept, my own Equalisers setting has characters like Ulysses and The Champions of the Omniverse, but I'm very wary of how it will play out in a major film release and ongoing series. You see, the MCU is excellent as a separate entity from the comics precisely because it's a stripped-down version of classic stories, without all the baggage of continuity and keeping track; which I also love, but get why that's a barrier to comics for many. Once a multiverse is opened up, the fans have to start tracking a lot more content to make sense of things and that wonderful simplicity will be lost. My hope is that this trend is only for "Wave 4" and doesn't represent a permanent change for the MCU, excepting, of course, What If? and any potential Exiles project.

All that aside, I really enjoyed Loki, especially as it is a cleverly-written series with a strong cast and a director with a clear vision. As a fan of Marvel obscura, seeing the TVA realised on-screen is wonderful, even if they're stripped of a lot of the more fantastic elements from the comics. Spending more time with the character of Loki is great, as he is able to shift from campy-yet-sinister foil to a more rounded and human individual driven by their history of trauma. The scenes in which Loki and Sylvie discuss their histories, where they diverge and where they're the same, almost play like a form of therapy, and is one of the best representations I've seen in fiction of the notion of going over the possible alternate paths of our own lives. I think that's the real appeal of Loki, that very-human tendency to look at ourselves and wonder what might have been. What is the version of me who became a teacher or took that sommelier course doing now? I mean, both are probably drinking, but you know what I mean.

I think the Disney+ Marvel programmes are really demonstrating what I've been saying for years about the Netflix Marvel programmes, in that they're too long and really should be cut down to a handful of episodes. Loki, as well as Wandavision, is strong because it plays more like an episodic film than a television series that is stretched to a particular length and padded out to meet a contract. One thing I will say is that the power behind the Time Keepers is clearly Immortus, not Kang. Seriously people, he's even wearing the Immortus costume (minus the hat), not to mention that it's Immortus, not Kang, who is traditionally linked with the Time Keepers. I am certainly enjoying all these deep-cuts of Marvel lore, but, again, I hope we're not heading towards a live-action Avengers Forever or anything like that. Though Marvel Studios should 100% get a Rick Jones happening in the MCU as soon as possible. Loki, despite my trepidation, is an amazing series with a hell of a lot of potential, and I'm excited to see where it goes in the future, so long as it doesn't mean that the MCU becomes an extended series of references to past media, as that's just kind of sad for the studio who brought us Black Panther, Civil War and Endgame.

Thinking Out Loud: Major League

Hey gang, just wanted to take a minute to talk about something that has been bothering me a little lately; people know that Yamcha isn't a loser right? Like, Yamcha actually has it pretty good, in the grand scheme of things. I think Dragon Ball Z Abridged kind of perpetuated the idea into a meme, but even back when the Funimation dub was being broadcast on television, I remember fans talking about how much Yamcha sucked, and hey, I was probably one of them. Now that I'm way older and have actually watched pretty much all Dragon Ball audio visual media that's ever been made (not all that keen to start Heroes and can't get Xenoverse to play properly on my Switch), I kind of realise that Yamcha is a pretty lucky guy for the most part and has never really been represented as a loser in a sense beyond being one of the weaker members of the Z Fighters.

So yes, Yamcha is not the most powerful fighter in a series about fighting, pretty much being left behind since losing his fight to Tien at the World Tournament in Dragon Ball, but in terms of strength and skill, he's still ahead of every person on the planet that's not an alien, cyborg or one of his friends. Dragon Ball Earth is pretty sparsely populated compared to our reality, but Yamcha is stronger than a couple of billion people at least, including some real powerhouses like Ox King and Tao Pi Pi. A lot of people focus on the fact that Bulma and Yamcha break up at the start of DBZ, but that means they were together for like ten years, so hardly a failed relationship by any measure; sometimes people grow apart you know? Not being able to achieve his dream of being a champion martial artist, what does Yamcha do? He goes and gets a bunch of high-paying jobs. No, really, it barely gets covered in the series, but Yamcha has been a professional Baseball Player, a Male Model and a Bodyguard; dude has had a pretty sweet life.

Although I'm a big fan of the character, I have to admit that, in many ways, Tien is a bigger "loser" than Yamcha ever was. Tien keeps chasing the power and skill of fighters like Goku, even though he can never get there, forsaking everything else in his life to chase a dream he can't reach. Meanwhile, Yamcha is getting cheered on by thousands of fans as a star pitcher or jetting around the world to do fashion shoots. Damn son. Not bad for a dirty kid who robbed people in the desert to get by in his teens. I think the reason I'm liking Yamcha more as I get older is the very reason that many fans malign him; he doesn't need to be the best. Yamcha has been the hero in the past, helping defeat Pilaf, King Piccolo and the Saibermen, but he's outclassed against a lot of foes, so he does other things to fill the days now, but hey, if you need help, he'll be there. Yamcha is fine, he's doing his own thing, and that's pretty cool. Wolf Fang Fist-bump buddy.

Superhero Media: Joker

I don't know if I just happen to be stubborn, or if it's something held over from my degree in Film Studies, but I almost never fail to finish watching a film, even if it's utter dross like I'm Not There or it takes me a few goes like Jonah Hexx. If I'm watching a film, even if I'm not enjoying it, I tend to finish it, usually putting anything else off that I can until it's done. Following on from that, and apologies if this gets too personal, there are only two films I have stopped watching to have sex instead. Not that I don't enjoy sex or didn't want to have it with the person in question or anything, I just typically wait until the film is finished. One film I stopped watching in such a way was the dull Australian horror film Daybreakers, and the other was Joker. I've since watched Joker uninterrupted to give it the best chance I could, but I still just couldn't make myself care about it. And I feel kind of bad saying that, because a lot of people love this film and Joaquin Phoenix is amazing in the lead, but when you get down to it, Joker just really isn't about anything.

A lot happens in Joker, but I'm left baffled as to why any of it is happening, and much of it doesn't seem to mean anything. There are themes of a broken mental health system, but they're undercut by the setting of the film in the 1980s. Setting the film in the '80s seems to want to be about something, but Joker is shot and dressed like it's the 1970s because it wants to look like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. The film strongly apes Taxi Driver, but there doesn't really seem to be a reason for that beyond borrowing some of the little gloss that Scorsese has left after the past decade of mediocrity and complaining. The soundtrack is bafflelingly tone-deaf, especially the inclusion of a Garry Glitter track, which, again, is from the wrong decade entirely. What, was "Psycho Killer" too obvious? Separating Joker from the Batman mythology is potentially interesting, but they wuss out on that too and Bruce FUCKING Wayne is in this film because we can't do anything in the DCU without reminding the audience that Batman exists. Hey, want to see the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne again? No? Too bad, because that's happening again.

I think I'd be less down on Joker if it had just been an uninteresting film that came and went and didn't occupy space in my brain. But because it has a solid lead performance, some quotable lines and the illusion of depth, I'll be bothered by people telling me that "actually, Joker is the greatest and most relevant superhero movie of all time" and I may roll my eyes so hard they actually eject from the sockets. Joker has nothing to say, but the words it uses, to belabor the metaphor, are flowery and sound educated, so people listen and start to believe. There, Joker is the film equivalent of Jordan Peterson, I solved it. No wonder internet Nazis love it so much. Do yourself a favour and watch King of Comedy instead, it's actually interesting. Want to watch a good film about a descent into madness, how about Eraserhead, Manhunter or The Lighthouse instead? Broaden your horizons, try something new, get away from Joker and the Joker in general, life is too short to keep going around on this monorail of diminishing returns, insisting that opinions you held when you were fourteen are still valid. It's not good, and I'm tired of pretending it is.

Thinking Out Loud: Inhale the State

Is Nindendo's Kirby an anti-capitalist icon? Well, no. I mean, it makes no sense that he would be, or that Sakurai and Hal have spent decades making entry-level games for children that indoctrinate them into agrarian Anarchism, but it's kind of hard to shake the idea once you see it. I covered this a little back in my Kirby Planet Robobot article, but I wanted to explore the idea more as it's just a bit of fun and very much in my wheelhouse. When not battling elder gods and manifestations of esoteric concepts, Kirby tends to find himself taking on petty dictators, mostly royalty or would-be conquerors, like King Dedede or Queen Sectonia. Now, there is more than one way to resist feudalism, but I don't see Kirby building industry and using economic power to force a governmental change to a capitalist model, so when he returns to a rural and naturalist existence, I'm thinking of the movements that inspired Bakunin more than anything.

As Kirby is, quite deliberately, something of a blank slate, we can never really know what he is thinking, beyond "I'm hungry", so any motivation to his actions has to be discerned in who he takes action against. In the original Kirby's Dream Land, King Dedede, an absolute monarch, has horded all of the food, and we have to assume the proletariat of Dream Land are left to starve whilst the King gorges himself. They work, he eats. Comrade Kirby defeats the King and redistributes the food while the credits roll. Of course, people will point out, not all of Kirby's enemies are royalty, there's Nightmare, Marx and Dark Matter, who are essentially eldritch gods, and, of course, Star Dream. Let's start with the godlings, who, aside from Marx (and that's just kind of an unfortunate coincidence on the name, really) are certainly not strictly Capitalist antagonists, but the extreme-Left does tend to be anti-religion, or at least anti-organised religion, so what's more radical than killing the gods? Outside of Kirby Right Back At Ya!, there is no demonstrated religion in Dream Land, though there is magic, so I wouldn't really assume anything more than a basic pantheism for most inhabitants. Trees have faces after all.

And Star Dream? Well, as I've said in regards to Planet Robobot before, I think it is one of the most blatantly anti-capitalist video games available, especially to children. Star Dream's plan is to monetise the entire universe so that it can control all wealth and capital, a universal monopoly controlled by one entity. If that's not capitalism as reductio ad absurdam, I don't know what is. What I didn't mention about Planet Robobot is that Susie, and later Star Dream itself, are modifying the landscapes and inhabitants of Dream Land in order to make them more "productive". Even King Dedede and Meta Knight are modified to be more efficient workers, losing their, for lack of a better word, "humanity" in the process. Susie offers Kirby several chances to join the corporation, which feature indoctrinating songs and propaganda, but as Kirby refuses (or perhaps simply fails to understand what is happening), Susie becomes increasingly frustrated and eventually decides to discard Kirby, as he won't fit into her profit-making machine. I'll say it again, I don't believe the Kirby games are anti-capitalist propaganda of any kind, but they can be read with that lens and I think doing so is an interesting thought experiment if you enjoy that kind of thing.

Superhero Media: Kirby Planet Robobot

First up, Kirby Planet Robobot is the most blatantly anti-capitalist video game I have ever played. Yes, I've never played Disco Elysium or Cookie Clicker, but the Kirby series is published by Hal and Nintendo and is aimed primarily at children. Suffice to say I wasn't expecting it when the reveal came that the antagonists of Planet Robobot were an evil corporation working for a supercomputer/elder god looking to control the universe through capitalism. Even the character of Suzie, who helps Kirby out towards the end of the game, isn't looking to stop Star Dream, but to control it for herself to make more money than she is now. But I'm getting ahead of myself, the game begins when a massive machine descends on Pop Star and starts to industrialise the landscape. Of course, Kirby was sleeping when it all went down, but now that he's awake, a lot of robots are about to be eaten. Kirby Planet Robobot is considered one of the best games in the Kirby series, and it's pretty easy to see why, as it's a hell of a lot of fun, even before you get to the parts where Kirby dons goggles and a leather helmet and starts piloting a mech with his face on it.

If I had one complaint, it's that Planet Robobot is a little brief, I finished the main game in a couple of days, but that's par for the course with Kirby games these days, sadly. As much as these games are made for younger players, I really feel there needs to be something like a New Game Plus mode or an extra world or two after the main story, rather than the additional mini-games which tend to be pretty mixed in terms of quality. Like many Kirby games, the ultimate boss of the adventure, Star Dream, has a Lovecraftian bent to it, despite looking like it just walked out of a Disney film, being a giant supercomputer that is intent on turning the entire universe into product that it can buy and sell for profit, growth-based capitalism taken to an absurd final extent. Opposing Star Dream, and Haltzmann and Suzie before him, the more feudalistic Meta Knight and King Dedede are overcome and incorporated into the machine (literally and figuratively) quite easily, whilst Kirby remains stubbornly agrarian, possibly even anarchistic in the face of corporate colonialism and cannot be stopped.

Now, I don't for a minute think that Masahiro Sakurai was intending Planet Robobot to be an entry-level treatise on Agrarian Anarchism as a reaction against Free Market Capitalism, but it's really hard to not read the game in those terms. Seeing the pastoral beauty of Dream Land overrun by sharp metal and hard edges is pretty shocking to a longtime fan like me, evoking Shiver Star from Kirby 64 as the poor Waddle-dees become more and more mechanical as the game progresses. In many ways, Planet Robobot feels like a sequel to Kirby 64, with locations like Shiver Star being a possible previous stop for Star Dream and even the game-play feeling like a natural development of what came before. If you've never played a Kirby game, Planet Robobot is a great effort, being a hell of a lot of fun and featuring probably the best Kirby cinematics outside of a Smash Bros game. Sadly, it's hard to get your hands on, as most people aren't moving on their beloved copies and it's been long out of print. Actually, on that, why are Kirby games so hard to get your hands on? If they popped up in the eShop, I'd be grabbing everything I can get and covering them here at some stage.

Force S5 - Part IV

So now that we understand the core concepts of Force S5, let's break down the Turn Sequence and how Combat is resolved.

As discussed before, play in Force S5 proceeds by placing a die (D6) in a bag or container for each member of a force, ideally dice of different colours but similar sizes to prevent cheating. Remove a die from the container, the player who's team the corresponds to nominates a model, rolls D3, then the model may perform that many Actions. After those actions are resolved, draw another die and continue play until all the dice have been drawn. Pretty standard across several games on the market, with the usual caveats of not being able to activate the same model twice or pass an Action. Pull a die, roll D3, perform that many Actions with a nominated model. Easy.

The Actions a model can perform are discussed below. Unless otherwise noted, a model may perform an Action any amount of times, so yes, if you roll 3 on your D3, you can Shoot three times. Actions are declared one at a time, so you can see how one resolves before deciding on the next. Remember, Force S5 is a silly game meant to be fun, so always err on the side of what will be more enjoyable for all players involved. 

Move - The model is moved in any direction 3"
Shoot - Make a Ranged Attack against an eligible target
Fight - Make a Melee Attack against an eligible target
Charge - Make a Move action that ends in base contact with an enemy Model
Hunker - When within 1" of a terrain feature, Shift Up Defense Dice
Dodge - Shift Up the model's Defense Dice
Focus - Shift Up the model's Attack Dice
Power - Use a Power
Interact - This is a catch-all Action used to claiming Objectives and interacting with terrain

As you can see, no ideas there that are going to light the Miniature Wargames world on fire, just pretty basic concepts that have been around a lot. Next, let's break down what all the terms introduced above mean;

Movement: Models are intended to be moving in short, sharp bursts, not making huge dashes across open fields, so it's recommended that you don't clutter a table with lots of ladders and climbable walls. To help smooth this out, Movement is the one action that can be "chained", so a player may declare multiple Moves before making them and measure up ladders and over barricades. For the purposes of Force S5, a model may cross obstacles that are shorter than them.

Ranged Attacks: The specifics of making an attack and dealing damage will be covered later, but for now, to make a legal Ranged Attack a model must have Line of Sight to the target. Force S5 uses "True Line of Sight", so a model must be able to "see" part of its target to make a Ranged Attack. It will be covered again later, but in Force S5, Ranged weapons have no maximum distance, they can shoot across the table.

Melee Attacks: To be eligible to make a Melee Attack, a model must be in base-to-base contact with its target. All Melee Weapons can only be used in base-to-base contact unless otherwise stated.

Charge: When making a Move action, a model may not get within 1" of an enemy model. It is only by making the Charge action that they may enter base-to-base contact. Unlike other miniatures games, performing a Charge action does not grant a "free" Melee action, you must have enough actions left.

Hunker: Being behind something solid isn't enough to avoid incoming fire in Force S5, you must make a choice to dig in. A model can only make a Hunker action when within 1" of a terrain piece, and may not make an action after doing a Hunker. Whilst Hunkered, a model's Defense is Shifted Up. Hunker lasts until the model makes a Move or Charge action. Hunker may not be stacked and does not combine with Dodge.

Dodge: Sometimes things don't go to plan and a model can be caught in the open, looking down the barrel of a gun. A Dodge Action Shifts Up a Model's Defense, but only for the next Attack (ranged or Melee) directed at it. Dodge lasts until the model makes a Move or Charge action. Dodge may not be stacked and does not combine with Hunker.

Focus: A model making a Focus action Shifts Up the dice on its next Attack (Melee or Ranged). Focus may not be stacked and cannot be used in subsequent turns, it must be used on the next Action.

Power: Some models will have powers, I'm still writing that part though. Use this Action to use a Power.

Interact: Use this action to claim Objectives, operate computer panels, open and close doors, etc.

Ok, so this one just became about rules sorry, not much room left for some background to the setting. To make up for that, the next entry will just be fun fluff and me messing around with UFO and conspiracy tropes, deal?

Superhero Media: Transmetropolitan

Run down the street like a motherfucker! Warren Ellis' seminal work for the DC Vertigo Imprint, Transmetropolitan is a political, cyberpunk, anarchic, drug-fulled, journalistic rampage in comic book form. Starring Spider Jerusalem, the mutant offspring of Hunter S. Thompson and Woodward and Burnstien; a freelance journalist working for a major city newspaper, speaking truth to power and cramming as many drugs into his body as he can manage. Assisting him are Yelana, his assistant, and Channon, a bodyguard and former stripper. After covering the American election, Spider and his "Filthy Assistants" find themselves entangled in a Presidential conspiracy of murder, corruption and genocide. When it came out, Transmetropolitan was wild, transgressive and radical, a call to arms against the powers that be. As much as I love the story, and think that it's brilliantly written, reading it again in 2021, far more radical myself than I was when I first discovered Spider Jerusalem, the whole thing is a bit of a let down.

Now, holding older media to current standards is always fraught, though not necessarily wrong, and from what I currently know of Warren Ellis, I certainly wouldn't accuse him of being a reactionary apologist, or anti-trans or racist, but I feel there are legitimate criticisms of Transmetropolitan that are not really being covered. So before I get into the negative, I really want to say that I have loved Transmetropolitan, and highly recommend it for anyone trying to get into comics but doesn't fancy superheroes. The story is strong, it has a lot to say and the characters are brilliant, it well deserves your time and much of the praise it gets. 10/10 Would read again. However... there are things. Thinks like the Transients being pretty hard to read as anything other than an allegory for Queer persons, particularly Genderqueer persons, and they're really not well represented. Again, I don't think this is some deliberate bigotry on Ellis's part, but as Fred Christ is the only Transient character with much panel time, and is a sex predator and con-artist, it doesn't read well as an allegory.

The primary antagonist of the series, President Gary Callaghan, is also baffling, as he's a sexually stunted sociopath who wants to rule so that he can make people suffer, which is fine, that sounds pretty accurate to me. What's odd is that Callaghan is a Democrat. Now, being an Anarchist, I really don't feel allegiance to any political party, especially one based in a country in which I don't live, but just what is the criticism being leveled at the Democratic party? Callaghan is a sex pest, so is it about Clinton? He looks a lot like Jimmy Carter, but nothing he does is reminiscent of anything Carter is typically criticised for, so any attempt at commentary is muddled. Despite the fact Callaghan and his opposite number, The Beast, are both horrible people seeking power for power's sake, there is not criticism in Transmetropolitan of the system that facilitates them, putting the blame for all governmental ills on the one person. There's also a weird sub-plot on child prostitution that goes nowhere that I personally find so jarring that I skip it in my re-reads these days.

Transmetropolitan is flawed, perhaps deeply so, but it remains a high watermark in comics as a political and socially conscious medium. If the lack of any POC or Queer characters is the kind of thing to turn you off, I really can't blame you, but it may be worth pushing through that to read this series. Some of the choices and stances are baffling, but the stream-of-consciousness style of Spider's columns are endlessly charming and engrossing. The world presented is an utterly unique blend of hyper-realism, cyberpunk and trans-humanism, but at the same time, feels completely familiar. There are many theses worth of content in Transmetropolitan to be parsed out for those willing to dive in, be it in the form of literary analysis, criticisms through Queer or Feminist lenses, or even just discussing how much Royce is amazing and deserves his own mini-series. Across ten trades, Transmetropolitan is pretty strong, keeping the same artist and writer in a manner most of these series don't manage. There's always talk of a television or film adaptation in the works, and whilst I would like to see that, I just hope it's more like The Boys, in that it gets updated and some of the worse elements polished away.