However, Jahan very specifically chose not to have the usual synthetic skin covering applied to Inga, as he wants his “droids to look like droids.” Well, there’s a few problems with Inga being a human replica droid, and most of them are just more of the ridiculous and laughable sexism still running rampant in comics.

Is she looking for robot porn?

First things first: the antennae on her ears. How would you mold flesh around that, as you would if Inga was completed? Perhaps those were added on later at Jahan’s request, but they still stand out. (In the real world, they were probably placed there to add details to her otherwise simplistic head.)

Next is the beauty mark and molded lips. Inga clearly does not have a nose; that makes sense, as that would be made of flesh. So why is there a specific beauty mark and full metal lips on a metal face? In a human replica droid’s completed form, you wouldn’t see them. They’re only there to make her look “sexy,” which is damned creepy on a robot.

Buckle up, it gets weirder.

Here’s the big standout — or rather, the two big standouts: Inga’s metal boobs. Last time I checked, boobs were made of flesh (or at least flesh covering jiggly silicone). For a droid designed to be indistinguishable from a human, how would a rock-solid rack help her fit in? (Especially when some lecherous scumbag attempts to cop a feel, which always happens in adventure stories.)

Last but not least…Inga has high heels.

What’s next, a pole?

Those aren’t boots or other footwear, mind you; those stiletto heels are part of her actual frame, which means that she also doesn’t have any toes. Jahan specifically said that he wanted Inga to look like a droid, which means that she came this way from her builder. Now, even though it seems that Inga was a custom job, the fact remains that she was specifically designed to infiltrate human society. Try to imagine the absolutely freakish creature that would result if they covered her in synthetic flesh! No way in hell could that blend in. Not only that, high heels aren’t exactly combat-friendly. Superheroines often wear them because they’re supposed to look sexy. That ain’t right on a robot.

I don’t know if Inga’s stripper-bot look was artistic license on behalf of penciler Stéphane Roux, or if Inga was specifically described this way by writer John Ostrander. Either way, it’s a shame; Roux’s art stands well enough on its own, and Ostrander should know better than to resort to such sexist nonsense.

Or, even worse, the creators thought that readers couldn’t possibly understand that Inga has a female personality unless they specifically designed her visual appearance around stereotypes. “Dammit, if she doesn’t have titanium tits, birthin’ hips and six-inch heels, fanboys won’t know what to think!”

It’s a shame, because other than her looks, Inga is a pretty cool character. Her espionage skills have proven most valuable to Jahan, she can hold her own in battle, and she’s likely a tribute to Maria, the robot from the classic silent film Metropolis. That’s always great to see. But given Inga’s fanboy-pandering design, I can’t help but shake my head and laugh.

(And shudder in horror at people who get off on a goddamned robot.)

I need to make something incredibly clear: art appreciation is subjective, but art itself is not. What most people fail to realize is that any piece of art, no matter the medium, still requires certain techniques in order to produce it. Those techniques are not opinions; they are merely processes subject to criticism just like anything else.

Take a film, for example. Your personal opinions on the overall product nonwithstanding…how was the acting? The editing? Sound design? Special effects? All of those are tried-and-true techniques that are taught, learned, and mastered. If a film is poorly edited, your comments on it must take that into account, otherwise you’re simply wrong. The same applies if a film has fantastic special effects, but you pan them because you didn’t like how they were used to advance the story. You’re incorrectly dumping your opinion on quantifiable techniques, rather than feelings toward the final product.

Criticism should be specific rather than generic. When it’s the latter, you’re often criticizing someone’s appreciation of the medium rather than actual details of a certain work within that medium. That has nothing to do with the work itself, and thus has no place in proper criticism of art.

I’m not talking about that dumb Comic Book Guy meme. That would be “Worst. Episode. Ever.”, which is completely separate yet still annoying. I mean the tendency of everday Internet dwellers and professional critics alike to dub something as the worst ever, when it is clearly not. (Sure, it’s possible for something recent to be the worst ever, but I’ve rarely if ever seen this.)

Further inflaming things is that they’ll label something the worst ever…until the following year, when something else becomes the worst ever. Wash, rinse, repeat. That clearly means that the preceding items weren’t nearly so bad, now were they?

For example, take this summer’s superhero film Green Lantern. It wasn’t great, but I’ve heard more than one critic dismissing it as “the worst comic book movie ever.”

Are you kidding me? Have these fools never seen schlock like Superman IV: The Quest for Peace or Batman & Robin? Even non-comic book fans could likely name five to ten superhero flicks off the top of their heads that make Green Lantern look like Citizen Kane.

This whole “worst ever” practice is blatant ignorance of and disregard for history. I understand that more often than not it’s either a) just the usual mindless bullshit from the average Internet troll, or b) a shameless ploy to pull in more page hits by making an inflammatory statement. In that case, I hereby declare this entry to be the worst blog post ever.

…until next year’s worst blog post ever.

“What’s this?!”
“The moon, dumbass.”

The version I purchased was actually one of those kickass BRD/DVD combo packs, which are becoming more and more prevalent as motion picture studios get a clue. The package was on sale for quite a low price, making the deal even sweeter. The DVD copy was for my girlfriend, but she was surprised that I bought the flick in the first place. She said to me, “I thought you hated musicals.”

She’s correct, but I find Nightmare to be an exception. As to why, let me explain why I don’t like musicals first, otherwise my opinions will make even less sense than usual.

You know I’m all about storytelling, which is why I’m often so picky when it comes to various media. I’m of the mind that the story should always come first, and whatever genre or style the end product falls into should be a result of said story. Musicals are the reverse. Those are designed to be song-and-dance routines first, with a story shoehorned in later, now matter how ridiculous the premise may be.

Then there’s the whole matter of realism. Sure, I like stupid movies as much as the next guy, but musicals take things to even more preposterous level. Since when is a serious situation going to cause people to break out into song, and start traipsing about in the streets like idiots? Case and point: Les Misérables. Since when is a bloody conflict like the fucking French Revolution something you want to sing and dance about? (Unless, of course, you want to make fun of it like Mel Brooks did with the “Spanish Inquisition” routine in The History of the World Part I.)

Even if you try to write a musical off as “the music is what’s telling the story,” then why bother having the non-musical parts? If the music the primary vehicle for telling the story, then the rest is clearly not, and shouldn’t be there. If I want storytelling via music, I’ll throw on a prog rock concept album. (Or an Immortal record.)

Let’s bring things back around to Nightmare. I highly doubt that Burton was hellbent on creating a musical, and later stuck a bunch of creepy characters in it. I’m sure Jack Skellington and friends came first, the world of Halloween Town and whatnot took shape, and then Burton worked with Danny Elfman to create a memorable score. The songs likely grew out of that, especially since this was a Disney film meant to be marketed to all ages. (Disney still released the film under their Touchstone Pictures imprint, as they thought some scenes were too scary for little kids.)

The songs in Nightmare are all well done (surprise, it’s an Elfman score), but they’re not critical to the film’s plot. They function just like a non-vocal score to a film, and that’s why they work so well.

I guess an even better example is this: look at other Disney animated films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, or Aladdin. There’s plenty of songs in them, but who really considers these films to be “musicals”?

Finally, I should also mention that my folks enjoy musicals, so I had to listen to that shit growing up. A lot. It drove me batty, so if you want to discount all of my other explanations and just go with that as the reason for my disgust when it comes to musicals, that’s cool.

That last bit is the fly in the ointment. As everyone knows, the last Star Trek film took place in an alternate timeline, often dubbed the “Abramsverse” after director J. J. Abrams. Love it or hate it, this was a sensible decision, as it brought in new fans to the Star Trek saga without burdening them with all that had come before.

However, the “prime” universe, where all of the other Star Trek series and movies took place, has taken a back seat. Merchandise and books are quite literally the only thing keeping the prime universe alive (fan productions nonwithstanding). As far as any new canon material is concerned…forget it.

It’s a shame, because as we all know, the prime universe stories far outclass the new film. Even if the next few Abramsverse films are mindblowing pieces of cinematic science fiction, they still can’t hold a candle to the powerful storytelling of the past four-plus decades.

The only official continuity coming down the line is Abramsverse stuff, and I bet that’ll extend to any new television productions as well. C’mon, we all know that Star Trek will make its triumphant return to television soon enough; it’s where the franchise began, and that’s where it’s always been at its best. My guess is that a new series will hit in the fall of 2016; the third Abramsverse film is sure to hit in 2015 (making it a neatly-wrapped trilogy), and the following year will be the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. That’s perfect timing, any way you want to slice it.

I still believe that the series would take place in the Abramsverse, albeit with a new ship and crew. Longtime Star Trek fans alone won’t be enough to keep a television series afloat, so the producers will need to draw in newcomers. There’s no easier way to do that than to tie it to the recent film continuity.

I mentioned that books are the only source of officially licensed stories taking place in the prime universe, even though they are not canon. In a bizarre reversal, a set of books based on the Abramsverse was cancelled, though some young adult novels were released. (Thankfully, they were free of vampires and werewolves.)

It would make my damned day if we got some new official prime universe stories, but I’m more likely to join the Q Continuum before that happens. The Abramsverse is here to stay…before the next inevitable reboot. I guess one can dream. How about another animated series? It’s been working well for Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and even a Star Trek Web series would be pretty awesome.

Make no mistake; this is the way media is moving forward, and we are powerless to stop it. Unfortunately, it also really sucks. You know me; I’m a fervent proponent of physical ownership over intangible licensing. But the cloud model actually takes things an ominous step further.

With most digital distribution models, you pay to download the content, which may or may not have usage restrictions via DRM. If whoever you purchased it from decides not to offer that content anymore, or worse, closes up shop, you at least have your downloaded copy to enjoy.

Not so with the cloud model. Now, you’re not even paying for the content itself; you’re just paying for access to that content. Which means that whoever’s hosting your library can remove content at their whim. And if they go out of business? Your media is now gone, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

A split between the two models would be best; Amazon’s recently-launched Cloud Player works this way. You can stream stuff all day and night, but it lets you upload your own files and download files purchased through Amazon. Now you can have backups of all of your stuff, and still enjoy it on the go from any Internet-enabled device. (Apple will be launching something similar as part of iTunes.) That kind of setup I don’t have a problem with, and I can only hope it becomes the standard. The only downside is that you have to pay a lot more if you’ve got a large media library, and many of us do.

I know physical media’s on its way out in favor of content providers having much greater control and telling you exactly what you can do with your media, but damn it, I’m going to hold out as long as I can. Hey, if vinyl LPs are still around, I think my CD collection will be safe for quite sometime.

For further reading on this topic, especially as it relates to music, check out the following two pieces by Vince Neilstein over at MetalSucks:

• Amazon Beats Apple and Google to the Cloud, Launches “Cloud Player” Music Streaming Service

• Amazon Cloud Player to Record Labels: “Fuck Off!”

I’d also suggest that you read the comments on those pieces. Aside from the usual Internet flamebait and trolling, there some interesting discussion happening there.

More and more often, I’ve come across nerds and geeks who are increasingly vocal and downright arrogant about their chosen hobby. Nowhere is this more apparent than the Internet, but since that could easily apply to just about any social group, I’m just going to focus on the geeky crowd today.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with proudly proclaiming what you’re into. But being a pretentious douche about it and elevating it above others’ hobbies at all costs is not cool at all. I suppose this whole thing is a progression from the hardcore fanboy movement I’ve seen gaining steam lately, but that’s still no excuse.

I see a lot of blind allegiance to geeky causes and interests, and immediate, ignorant dismissals of anything and everything that’s different or “mainstream.” In the militant nerds’ minds, only their interests are creative, or interesting, or relevant. Everything else is mass-market garbage…even if it’s not. Even worse is when they believe their interest of choice is exempt from any and all legitimate criticism. (Item #1 on this list is a damned fine example of this behavior.)

Surprisingly enough, I don’t see this kind of elitist behavior with extreme video game fans. I think that’s because video games as a medium have actually become mainstream in recent years. (The industry’s trouncing other forms of entertainment in sales, after all.) Gamers are rarely considered geeks anymore. Besides, gaming elitism is usually insular; gamer geeks rip on other gamer geeks.

Perhaps the popularity of superhero movies was the tipping point. Or perhaps the critical acclaim lauded on science fiction and fantasy programs like Battlestar Galactica, LOST, and Fringe. (Even though nerds were not what made these shows popular: it was a mass audience.)

The biggest irony, of course, is that these arrogant nerds have not only become what they despise, but they’ve actually become worse. They’re trying so hard to push back at a society that’s scorned them that they’ve become shitheads who crap in others’ cornflakes at an even higher level. Not only that, but since they make it a point to demonize the mainstream at every opportunity, that only proves that the mainstream is what actually drives them (just like hipsters).

If you’re of the nerdy persuasion, acting like this is nothing to celebrate. It’s just yet another example of how super-geeks are incredibly annoying, and continually ruin any chance of acceptance in society for their more laid-back brethren.

More often than not, I’m answering “no” to both of those questions for a majority of films. The theater experience can make all the difference for big-budget movies, but even then, I’m going there less and less.

You can thank services like Redbox for this. Why should I pay nearly ten bucks to see a movie in a theater full of assholes, when I can watch it at home for a dollar? I’ve got an HDTV and surround sound system, so the only thing I’m missing from the “theater experience” is a gigantic screen. I can live with that.

Quality of a film is naturally important to me. Other than the usual word of mouth from friends and family, I use Rotten Tomatoes to help decide whether I want to see a film in the theaters. I always check the “Top Critics” listing for any particular film, as any random movie fan with a website can usually get on to the main list. There’s a lot of professional film reviewers in the Top Critics area that I trust, so their educated analyses of upcoming flicks are invaluable to me.

I need to state at this point that I definitely do not subscribe to the preposterous belief that “reviews don’t mean anything.” That’s complete bullshit. I understand that not everyone likes or dislikes the same thing, but that’s not why that belief fails. First off, when people claim that “reviews don’t matter” or whatnot, 99% of the time it’s because a movie they enjoy got crappy reviews. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to the quality of the film.

Secondly — and much more importantly — the reviews I read judge a movie’s quality based on easily quantifiable facts: direction, acting, cinematography, sound design, effects, writing, editing, and so forth. Those cannot be logically argued against. I don’t like reviews that just say “This movie sucks because [insert random opinion here].” That doesn’t tell me a damned thing! I want facts, not opinions.

People sometimes think I’m some kind of film snob because I don’t want to spend a ten-spot on a shitty movie. Fuck ‘em. There’s plenty of fantastic movies that I don’t want to see, either, often because I’m just not interested in the subject matter. I’ve heard nothing but great things about The King’s Speech and The Social Network, but the plots simply do not interest me.

There’s no shame in enjoying a shitty movie, but c’mon: don’t try to escalate it to levels of quality that it clearly does not have. And I’m certainly not going to pay a hefty chunk of change to see a movie that’s a turd.

Why do so many comic book nerds hate Superman?

You wouldn’t think the Man of Steel would be reviled by many, but hear me out. The ultimate superhero archetype has been around since 1938, and every superhero that followed owes their livelihood to Superman in one way or another. No superhero is more influential, nor ever will be. Yet the negativity against ol’ Kal-El never seems to cease. From whining about his costume (“it’s too old-fashioned”) to grumbling about his powers (“too powerful”) to eye-rolling at his weakness to Kryptonite (“that makes no sense”), you’d think that there aren’t any Superman fans at all out there. Of course, we know that over seventy years of comics, films, games, and television shows put that worry to rest.

Personally, I’ve been getting back into the character as of late, largely due to the “Reign of Doomsday” storyline running through multiple DC Comics series. Since I’m also a Doomsday fan, it was a lock for me. This made me want to re-read the entire Death of Superman saga (“Doomsday,” “Funeral for a Friend,” and “Reign of the Supermen!”), and it still holds up quite well despite its controversial nature. Bear in mind that this was back in a time when superheroes dying and coming back to life was not commonplace! It remains one of my favorite comic book tales of all time, yet I know a lot of comic book fans who bitch endlessly about it. What gives?

This has also spurred me into picking up other past Superman stories in collected form. Next, I’m going to pick up the massive Superman: Doomsday and Superman: Our Worlds at War omnibus trade paperbacks. Unlike the hardcover omnibuses commonly seen, these reprint those storylines at a budget price, since they’re in paperback form and use non-glossy paper. You can’t beat that! Concerning Our Worlds at War in particular, I only read part of that story when it was originally published, via other DC Comics series I was reading at the time. I’m looking forward to seeing Superman serve Imperiex a piping-hot slice of ruckus pie. When Superman: Secret Origin comes out in trade paperback form, I may check it out; I’m not a fan of Geoff Johns constantly retconning heroes’ histories and origins, but I did hear that the book was excellent. (Though I doubt it beats The Man of Steel or Birthright, the previous retellings of Kal-El’s formative years.)

That’s not to say that Superman doesn’t have his share of shitty comics. We all know how puke-worthy Superman Red/Superman Blue was, and as far as more recent comics are concerned, I’ve heard that the years-long New Krypton storyline was very disappointing. (That noise you hear is my wallet breathing a sigh of relief.) Still, that alone can’t be the source of so much negative fan reaction.

Other than comics, of course, there’s the Superman films. I’ll admit that I’ve seen only bits of pieces of the George Reeves ones, but I watched the first two Christopher Reeves movies constantly when I was a kid. (Even back then, I knew that Superman III and IV sucked.) These are one of the primary reasons that everyone knows what that big “S” stands for. I even enjoyed Superman Returns, which apparently makes me a horrible person. Sure, it wasn’t a perfect film, but by no means was it the shitty piece of celluloid that so many nerds make it out to be. The geeky complaints I’ve heard about that film range from borderline to certifiably ridiculous, and they all translate to a simple belief: “Superman sucks.” I’ve heard little to no constructive criticism of the film, just fanboy whining. I certainly believe that this just boils down to dislike of the character himself. Which begs the question: why did these tools even bother seeing Superman Returns in the first place?

Personal preference is one thing, but this seemingly blind hatred? I don’t get it.