DarthSkeptical

Heh, the Curt Swan/Mort Weisinger Superman certainly did use his powers to spy on others for purely personal reasons. One easy example I can think of: Insofar as the context of the film, though, I thought it was entirely appropriate. He wasn't a voyeur. He was trying to figure out what his reaction to the news of Lois' new relationship should be. If it was sufficiently serious then he would back off and let it run its course. He wanted, I thought, to know if she were happy. If so, then he seemed perfectly prepared to bow out gracefully. Putting an ex-lover's happiness ahead of your own because you love them is one valid definition of heroism. And Clark didn't "drink away his sorrows" in the film. He had one drink. Do we seriously imagine with his physiology that a drink really has the same intoxicating effect as it does for humans? He was just being Jimmy Olsen's pal, making the young photographer feel at ease in a social situation. Are you similarly offended by Chris Reeve's champagne-before-premarital-sex in Superman II? Being a hero doesn't mean you forego the social conventions of the society you protect. The very essence of the Superman character is the dance he does between being human and yet not being human. People make the mistake all the time of believing he should be "better than us" when really he's just a "better version of us". If we wanted to get really deep into the psyche of Superman, I really do think he's probably not living his life the way Jor-El would have wanted. I think Jor-El would have actually preferred him a god. But the fact he doesn't believe himself a god is rather precisely what puts him in direct opposition to Luthor, and what makes Luthor's vision of Superman so warped. He's a man with the power of a god, and the writers that have understood that have generally given us the best Superman stories. It's the ones who believe him perfect, or at the very least a guy burdened by his reponsibility to "set an example", that have led us into the more unreadable parts of the Superman canon. I don't want Superman to be a god. I just want him to be good. This Singer and Routh delivered in abundance.

I'm not casting a vote here because my rationale doesn't fit neatly into either possible answer. A garage sale is a garage sale. The point of them is to get rid of stuff that the owner has absolutely no use for. It's not really held with a view to making the owner rich, except in terms of reclaimed space. It's not about the machinations of a free-market economy wherein the parties are arriving at a mutually beneficial "bargain". It's one in which the owner knows he or she is going to make less money than if they took the items to a proper auction. At various times, I'm sure we've dumped stuff at way below market value, just to get rid of it, and we'll all go to garage sales later in our lives and be on the other end. So I'd have little problem not only takin' it for a steal, but also haggling the price down even more! "Karma", as Jenny C. puts it, is satisfied because what we lose in a garage sale we run today is gained at a garage sale we attend in the future. However, I have been tested by this very issue at my local comics shop, and there I've acted quite differently. The owner has a mint copy of Star Wars: The Freedon Nadd Uprising (by issues), and he's selling them at their face value. He has no idea that they're actually among the most valuable issues on the Star Wars secondary market. But I've not bought them from him, nor have I told them of their worth. I'm of the opinion that they're really good stories and the current market price is entirely artificial. When they get published in Star Wars Omnibus format in a couple of years everyone will get to enjoy the story at a reasonable price again. Until then, I think my duty to karma is to leave them in the bins, with the hope that some kid, who couldn't possibly enjoy them at current market prices, stumbles across them quite by accident. Now, if he had a copy of Action #1 that he was going to sell me for 10¢, I'm sorry, but I would take that and run . . .

Well, of the ones you listed, Tara Strong. But my very favorite "normally rendered voice" in cartoons is Maria Canals' "Hawkgirl". In all forms of animated entertainment, though, my nod really goes to Sara Kestelman's "Kreia" in Knights of the Old Republic 2.

What is mighty love about? The title intrigues me. It's a more mature-themed comic book--Chaykin was, after all, important to the development of Heavy Metal--which posits the existence of a super hero and a super heroine, who are by day a cop and a defense attourney, and by night patrol the streets as old-school "mystery men"-types. The nature of their day jobs puts them on opposite sides of the legal process, as do their own stated political philosophies. However, they are drawn together by the fact of their "night jobs", which makes them effectively both just vigilantes, operating outside the law to offer a swifter brand of justice. It's fun because it harkens back to the DC of the original, pre-Batman issues of Detective, while allowing for a grittier, sexier depiction of the hunt for justice. Like the dozens of districts-attourneys-cum-masked-heroes who made their way into early DC anthology comics, though, these two had this one adventure, and so far a repeat performance has not been commanded by the publisher. Not sure if this is because it really didn't sell well, or if it was that the publishing arrangements are trickier (Chaykin owns the characters). In either case, it's a shame.

With all due respect, guys, you went on a rant about Lana without a) explaining what the character was like in the annals of DCU history (an INFINITELY lamer version than KK's Lana) and b) basing that mainly on seasons 1 and 2. That's dirty pool. You're not alone in this assessment, but, dammit, it annoys me. I think a lot of people who hate Lana in Smallville sort of stop at the summary, "She's the one who he can't have", and don't look at the complex nature of the relationship. Nor do they properly understand what role all four women play in Clark's Smallville life. Smallville at least tries to make Lana an integral part of his transition to Superman. It's not just that she's an ill-fated waypoint on the Lois Lane Expressway. She's firmly at the crossroads of all the major discoveries he needs to make to become Superman. The road from Jor-El to the Fortress of Solitude--that has to go through Lang Junction. Equally, she is absolutely pivotal, as has been increasingly clear since the season four finale, to the irrevocable breakdown in the relationship with Lex. If the comics posited that Lex and Superboy became rivals when Lex lost his hair to Kryptonite, Smallville definitely seems to be saying that the thing that will finally make Luthor go over the edge is his realization that Lana is his best shot at a "normal" life, and Clark will not only prevent that, but ultimately sour Lana so badly that Lex won't have a shot at her either. It's not enough, in other words, that he will lose Lana to Clark, but that he will lose her to the idea (and ideal) of Clark, which will, I believe, make Lex just stop trying to nurture his good side altogether. With any luck, Lex will see the eventual final breakup with Lana as "Clark callously discarding what he himself would move mountains to have", rather than "something that just didn't work out". Forgetting the fact, for the moment, that it's Lana who has been the conduit for every major Kryptonian revelation, or that she's also the emotional glue between Clark and Lex, it is important to understand where she is in the pantheon of female Smallville characters, and why it's vital she is not right for him. The goal of Smallville is, first and foremost, to get Clark to wear glasses and a cape. For that to happen, Clark must, by definition, find a way to leave Smallville behind. This ain't happenin' if a) Chloe is in the picture, b) Lana is happy in the relationship, or c) Martha relies on him too heavily. Yet it also can't happen if he dishonors these three women. For Superman to be super he has to have de-emphasized these relationships for honorable reasons. In other words, there's gotta be a little bit of Chloe, Lana and Martha in Lois for it to plausibly be the one relationship for which he was "destined". Chloe is his professional mentor. Martha is his moral core. And Lana is his soul. All three of these things exist within Lois, which is why, ultimately, he marries her. Lana represents the side of Lois that is surprisingly vulnerable--and the one that demands (but this time gets) complete honesty. If we don't see, through Lana, how difficult it is for Clark to be totally honest with someone about his true nature, then the ultimate honesty in the Clark/Lois relationship is much less impactful. And, let's face it, that relationship, throughout most of comics history, has been incredibly flat. At least now, there is some part of Superman lore that is finally giving us emotionally--and not just intellectually-- valid reasons why it's such a big deal that Clark shares his secret with Lois. In being honest with Lois, he is directly guided by the failure of the Lana relationship. By giving us the details of that failure (what you, and so many other people, see as the boring "soap opera" of their relationship), the impact of the eventual Lois/Clark hook-up is that much greater. I say give me as much Lana/Clark angst as possible, then give me another series of Lois and Clark--this time done seriously and in continuity with Smallville As for Chloe and Clark, well, I think the writers have done precisely their job if you're saying you want them together. Because if you're saying that, you're really saying you want to see Lois and Clark together. I do think the writers "got lost" with Chloe from the middle of season 3 to the middle of season 4, but now that she knows his secret, she's totally revitalized. Unfortunately, the truth is that Chloe must die in order for the "professionally aimless" Clark's transition to the Daily Planet to be completed. The most satisfying use of her character, IMHO, would be for there to be some tiny flicker of hope that they might have a romantic relationsihip in like the last few episodes of the series, after a final seal has been placed on Lana/Clark, and then have her killed off in front of Lois and Clark, so that both of them would then dedicate their lives to journalism sort of in her honor.

The continuity should scare you. The show is built around the concept of a time traveller who states he can't interfere with the natural evolution of things, but each and every episode violates that philosophy. "Chaotic" doesn't begin to describe the possible outcome--and that's just based on the televised episodes. Throw in the radio dramas, comics, and novels, and you've got something which can only charitably be called "a total mess". As a long-time fan, Doctor Who continuity scares the bejesus out of me, when I think about it. But the beauty of the new show is that while it doesn't go out of its way to dispute any of the old continuity, it doesn't draw your attention to it, either. It's specifically designed to start with Episode One ("Rose") and be able to make entire sense out of everything going on. At the end of the day, the reason the show's survived for the 40-odd years that it has is because it has an entirely simple concept at its core, which can be reinterpreted anew by each passing generation. If you really try to make sense of the continuity, in toto. you will be driven mad. Take each episode as it comes, however, and you'll have a helluva good time. Just remember that, by definition, a show about a meddling time traveller can't really have true continuity, and you'll be fine. Go down the path of these people who attempt to build a timeline of events for a time traveller, and you'll end up hating the show. If nothing else, you've gotta watch it for the curiosity factor alone. At the time it was cancelled it was the longest-runnng science fiction show anywhere in the world. By a long, long measure. But it was also held up as the exemplar of all that was cheap and shoddy about TV sci-fi. Now, it's winning the British equivalent of Emmies for its quality. As a writer, you've gotta watch it to see how a very old, but dubiously-regarded show, was suddenly translated into must-see TV.

Just listened to Episode 08, in which you announced the release of Battlestar Galactica 2.0. Calling it "2.0" isn't a case of the producers "being hip", as you suggested, but rather being accurate. This season--as defined by the number of episodes ordered on a single invoice--is about twice as long as the first season, but it's still a couple of episodes short of what an American broadcast network would call a "season". Instead of playing the network game of interspersing new episodes with repeats to "stretch" the season over the course of 8 months, they're broadcasting 10 in a row, taking a substantial break, then broadcasting the remaining 10. That mid-season break was kind of long--more than 2 months--but still less than what would be called the "off-season". And it's quite clear, listening to Executive Producer Ronald D. Moore's podcaast in his Episode 11 and 12 broadcast that he still believes he's in Season 2. This is good for fans, because when it's on, it's on without a break. And it's good for SciFi because they can, in effect, market two major cliffhangers out of a single season. Of course, they can also release two separate DVD packages for the single season, calling them "Season 2.0" and "Season 2.5", respectively. When you compare it with the way that, say, Smallville is done, it's really quite compelling--and clever. The network gets two DVD "paydays" out of a season, which keeps the show alive, and we get the entirety of a season by late March instead of mid-May--without having to endure those off-putting "rerun weeks". Most significantly, we get the DVDs within a matter of weeks after the broadcast of the final episode of each half of the season. I'd rather have that, and pay a little more for it, than waiting a whole year to get a whole season. The thing is, too, the commentaries and extras are more plentiful and of a higher quality, as a historical reference, because they're done much sooner after an episode has been finished. Plus, as they're done while the show is still in production, the DVD commentaries are a whole lot more "relevant" than what you get out of most television shows. It feels much more immediate, much more like you're participating in the creative process than most other DVD sets offer.

I have no idea what your tastes are, and have listened to only a couple of episodes, so I could well be off base. But I'll throw out some recommendations, anyway: Nat Turner by Kyle Baker Star Wars: Clone Wars, volume 5, The Best Blades (even if you're not a Star Wars Fan, it contains the best-reviewed single issue of any Star Wars comic, Star Wars: Jedi--Yoda Heroes of World of Warcraft, a web-comic based on World of Warcraft. [Recommended not because I or you necessarily play WoW, but it's an interesting intersection between comics and popular videogames.] Revelations (Dark Horse) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (The first three trades. Yeah, okay, that's two different Star Wars titles. But since your show handles videogames, these three, in light of the videogames significantly based on them, Knights of the Old Republic I and II, might make for an interesting episode.) Mighty Love (DC/Vertigo) by Howard Chaykin