Steel and Sugar

            There are three characters in DC Comics who are considered the seminal ones over all others. One is Superman, one is Batman and the other, Wonder Woman. Together, they are often referred to as “The Trinity”. Batman is hands down the most popular of the trio. Superman is a close second and then Wonder Woman is somewhere in third place.

            Of course taking these three characters above all the others in the DCU and casting off the rest is an insult to gems such as Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman, Hawkman and so on. While some are difficult to keep up a regular series (Hawkman comes to mind) it implies an undeserved second tier status.
            Batman’s popularity is obvious. He’s just a man with a burning vendetta–he seeks justice above else and will do anything to see it done. Superman is a being of great powers who dedicates himself to protect the lesser human among whom he dwells. He is a source of inspiration by his very existence, a reminder mankind can rise to bigger and better things.
            And then there’s Wonder Woman.
            What exactly the most popular female character at DC stands for exactly has always been a subject of debate. The great champion of the Amazons from the isle of Themyscira, the answer should be obvious. Princess Diana is a role model to women everywhere, a character who demonstrates aptly that a woman can stand to any challenge a man can and meet it head on.
            Yet, the creator of Wonder Woman (William Moulton Marston) often depicted the character in those early years, subdued by her own Lasso of Truth, strapped helplessly to a phallic image, such as a surging missile as it rocketed through the skies. Early Justice Society stories also portrayed her in the role of the Society’s secretary. But that was then, right?
            Wonder Woman enjoyed a run of popularity in the 1970s as her TV show aired and brought her national attention. Even though the show only lasted two seasons, feminists immediately embraced the character as an icon of strength and female independence.
            Wonder Woman has been portrayed as a strong woman, with great strength, ferocity, beauty, grace and compassion. But she’s also been contradictorily made into everybody’s girlfriend at the same time. The Justice League cartoons had her with an interest in Batman and stories such as Kingdom Come and the more recent New 52 stories have had her as Superman’s lover.
            Batman is Batman, first and foremost. He’s not defined by his relationship to Catwoman, Talia Al’Ghul or whoever. He is Batman. And sometimes he has a love interest. Contrast this against Wonder Woman, who has to be Superman’s girlfriend first and a character second. This is not to say she can’t have a love interest but why must it seem to be such an integral point to making her character interesting to modern readers? There’s now a Superman/Wonder Woman comic series–but no one make such accommodations for Batman/Catwoman, for example. Why was Wonder Woman okay as a character on her own when George Perez reinvented her in the 80s or John Byrne wrote her comic later--but not now?
            Sadly, the answer would seem obvious. The current crop of comic writers is bereft of good ideas. Someone doubtlessly put as much thought into the matter as “hey! Superman’s really strong and Wonder Woman’s really strong too. We should make them boyfriend/girlfriend! That would be so cool!”

            Female characters can be interesting on their own without being someone’s damsel in distress or an accessory for accessory’s sake. Look at Batgirl (any iteration), the Huntress, Ms. Marvel, Spider Woman, She Hulk... it’s all in the writing. Someone with half a brain and a granule of talent is able to carve personality and drama out of a female character. It’s the lazy hacks with very little understanding of what makes a character interesting who manage to fail time and again, resorting to making the girl a trophy for the boy character. It’s the same mentality that automatically equates “gritty” with “dramatic”.
            Given the large number of female comic readers and geeks out there one would assume the comic companies would try a bit harder to pander to them, making consistently interesting female characters, regardless of the characters various slant on the world (villain, hero, saint, sinner, etc).
            Let’s be honest too–a strong, intelligent female character is just as appealing to a male reader as to a female one. It’s their journey ultimately not their gender that is interesting. (Likewise, if the female character is weak willed and vacuous they can still be made interesting–in the right hands).
            It seems DC Editorial should take a good long hard look at itself and realize the terrible mistake it’s making by allowing Wonder Woman to be shuffled off to be somebody’s girlfriend instead of allowing her to stand on her own. It seems like they don’t understand what to do with her when given her popularity, she should be a marquee character with several books out–like Batman and Superman. Also, get a movie or TV script that works and get it out there! Why waste such a great marketing opportunity for the character.
            After all, if DC won’t take the character seriously why should anyone else?

DKA

The Unending, Unerring War for the Stars...

    It’s a commonly accepted fact among most geeks that the Star Wars prequel trilogy was not very good. Generally, the common response is one of hate or disgust whenever the films are brought up. After many years and much deliberation, I’ve been forced to agree.
    I wanted to have liked these movies so much. I really did. I tried for a long time to justify Lucas motives in making them the way he did. In the end, I just had to accept that they weren’t well made. (I’m not going to make any statements about how he’s destroyed my childhood or ruined Star Wars forever, etc. I’ll leave such judgements up to the more hyperbole-prone fans).
    Part of the problem lies with the methods George Lucas used to make the newer films. He chose, for better or worse, to do things in an assembly-line style. This is great from a practical standpoint. You line up your various targets in a row and then take them down in succession. Lucas took each of the varied tasks and set them up in a corporate sort of structure–this department does this and that one does that, etc.
    One need only look at the films to see the truth of the matter. The wardrobe, art department, visual effects, practical effects, music and so on are well executed. Even the advertising department did a wonderful job of getting people, time and again, to come in and see films that continued a story they had loudly and publicly decried on the internet.
    Where this system failed miserably, however, was that Lucas did the story himself and, after however many drafts, decided what he had was good. This deviates from the mess that was the making of A New Hope, where many people worked on tweaking and outright re-writing the script until we arrived at we saw on screen. It’s been said repeatedly that Lucas needed an Editor or at least others’ input for the prequel trilogy. Sadly, in his confidence that he had the right set-up to make the films he certainly overestimated his own ability to pull off a satisfying story. And what is any film, no matter how efficiently its executed, without a good story first and foremost?

What They Did Right...

   Most articles I’ve seen quickly jump to “what’s wrong with the films”. There are certainly many problems but there are also a few things they managed to get right.
    As seen on the various documentaries included with the DVDs/Blu-rays, Lucas ran a very impressive operation when he filmed the three films. Each time, he was efficient and organized when he filmed these movies. He knew exactly what he wanted, how he wanted it and how to get there. It seems like waste was kept to a minimum.
    The special effects are top notch, by and large. Lucas depended heavily on CGI instead of practical effects in these films. Most of it still holds up years later and looks very impressive even on a home screen. Additionally, the props and wardrobes are well done and very realistic looking when you watch the movies.
    The music is also excellent. Especially in The Phantom Menace, it’s clear John Williams brought his “A” game to his efforts. New compositions, such as Duel of the Fates, the Trade Federation “invasion” music, the Tatooine street music and many others demonstrate this amply. Even Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith have their moments, although they don’t feel quite as creative overall when compared to the first four films (I’ve heard it said that Lucas wanted Williams to make places where he could just insert pre-recorded themes into the later films. I’m not certain if this is true or not but it does seem a logical option when one listens to the soundtracks as performed).
    As previously mentioned, the advertising efforts were also excellent. The trailer for Phantom Menace made me want to rush out and see it. I don’t recall Attack of the Clones trailer as much but the Revenge of the Sith teaser was excellent. Obviously the commercials (and efforts) made people desire to go out and see the films time and again.

BZZT! WRONG!

    Of course the huge failure of the prequel trilogy is its awful storytelling. I’ve seen it mentioned that The Phantom Menace is structured horribly, without really having a main protagonist (one of the best commentaries on the matter that I’ve seen is the Redletter Media reviews, HERE). We really don’t know who to cheer for in TPM and after all is said and done, wonder why Qui Gon Jin is even in the story to begin with. Or why the characters make half of the choices that they do.
    Attack of the Clones is interesting but right away I knew it was a terrible movie. I was in a daze after TPM but AOTC was bad right off the bat. Once again, we have things happening that are either irrelevant or poorly executed so that we can get to the special effects and action. Perhaps one of the story’s most critical flaws is the romance between Anakin Skywalker and Padme (side note: Why was she Queen Amidala in the first movie and then Padme Naberrie in the second? No one even tried to reconcile the name differences for the character. I mean, yes, she has a double in the first film so the dual identity sort of makes sense. But how does “Amidala” relate to Padme or her time as Queen? I could never figure that one out). The romance storyline is largely given a backseat compared against Obi-wan’s mystery plot and is never convincingly done. We know Padme likes Anakin on some level but why does she suddenly decide to fall in love and marry him? He goofs off around her, whines a lot and then his mommy dies so he goes and kills a bunch of Sandpeople. In the right hands, this could’ve made sense. As it is, it’s a mess and unconvincing). Two cut scenes from the movie where we meet Padme’s family and they discuss Anakin a little behind his back help but they could’ve gone further still.
    On a minor note, the title is also terrible.... apparently Lucas was going for some kind of fifties sci-fi movie homage but it fails miserably and seems horribly out of place. The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith titles I have no qualms with.
    Revenge of the Sith has its moments, but there aren’t enough of them and it’s still hampered by some bizarre story choices (wasting too much time on the Separatist ship, for example, and not being convincing enough in why Anakin turns to evil when all he really wants is to save his wife. Also, having most of the critical “Clone Wars” story happen off-camera between films).
    It’s clear Lucas didn’t plot out the whole story ahead of time, instead having broad story “beats” to achieve in each segment (Padme meets Anakin. Check. Obi-wan trains Anakin. Check. Anakin turns evil. Check. And so on...) If he’d taken the time to look at the big picture (beyond his bank account total) he could’ve figured out what he needed to do and set it up over the course of all three films instead of the willy-nilly nature of the story we got.
    Who knows? Maybe George was so busy running his empire that he didn’t have the time or creativity to devote to making a new story right. In that case, he really should’ve gotten some writers that he trusted and let them go to town on it instead.

A New Vision...

    Lucas’ broad strokes were fine, he just didn’t execute them right. Looking at what he had, he should’ve axed the whole kid Anakin thing and made him a teenager to start with. Hire one actor to play the character (someone who could act and could pull off a believable Anakin, whether he’s mellow, a hothead or whatever). Have him be believable, want to do right and end up giving into the temptations of the dark side. For my two cents, make him a Han Solo-like character...after all, the audience should like him so they can cheer for him instead thinking he’s a whiny, obnoxious twerp like the Anakin we got.
    Also, drop the whole religious-sounding thing where the Jedi abstain from relationships. It was stupid and really didn’t serve the story all that well. They were Jedi Knights, not Jedi Priests after all.
    Decide what you want to do with Padme–is she a queen, a politician, something else all together and stick with it. She should be strong minded and independent. Their relationship should be less over the top and more natural. Make us believe it and feel sad when Anakin goes bad. No more of this she died because she lost the will to live crap.
    Have some villains show up in the first movie and stay through until the third one. Yes, Darth Maul was cool but he died immediately with no real character development and had to be replaced by surrogates such as Count Dooku and General Grievous. Why not have had him stay until the late second movie or even the early third one? We get to know him a little, see him fight the bad guys-maybe beat them thoroughly–and then he gets his comeuppance in act three. Maybe Palpatine employs him with the secret plan that either Anakin will defeat him and join the dark side–or perhaps the best man will win. So Ray Park wasn’t an actor so much as a stuntman. No problem. Get him into an acting workshop, give him at least the basics. Done.
    Either drop Qui-gon all together or have him be the apprentice to Obi-wan and have him die heroically early on. Obi-wan, Anakin and Padme should be the main focus of the story. Everyone and everything else is secondary.
    Why not have the clones be the result of a mad eugenics war? Perhaps the Sith or somebody is creating an army to conquer the Galaxy and the Republic capture their own clone machines and grow some soldiers (or have them be reprogrammed to fight for the Republic). Yes, it’s a more simple approach. But Star Wars and simple go well together so why over-complicate things too much? Also, the droids were laughably bad opponents in the trilogy and shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
    Either no Jar Jar all together or replace him a more mellow, less spastic character. He really served no purpose in the story (other then to piss off adults and make kids buy toys). The idea of a cgi character was cool but the character himself was not.
    Character and story are the key elements to a satisfying movie–Star Wars or not. Sadly, we did not get this in any of the three prequel movies.


Episode 7 and beyond...

    In Fall of 2012, George Lucas sold Lucasfilm (and Star Wars) to Disney. The Mouse immediately decided they would do a Episode 7 movie as part of a new trilogy. Additionally, JJ Abrams will direct the film. I think Abrams sensibilities are well-suited to Star Wars (and a lot less so to Star Trek–but that’s another story).
 
    Will the new trilogy succeed? Probably. But I’m not sure I really care anymore... also, no matter how many classic SW actors get involved, this story should’ve been told decades ago. Now that they’re all old and able, at best, to mentor new characters in the story it just won’t be the same. People will come in with big expectations (like before with TPM) and come out disappointed. You simply can’t go home again so there’s no pointing in expecting to relive your childhood with new films.  
    They should not set the movies after Return of the Jedi. Go somewhere else, if you must make more. Do Knights of the Old Republic--or come up with something all-together new but using the familiar elements (Jedi, space battles, etc.) Trying to ride the classic trilogy’s coat-tails further is only a recipe for fan disappointment in the end.  
    In the end though, no matter what happens we’ll always have the classic trilogy as it existed and nobody will ever be able to take that away from us, no matter how many sub-par prequels or sequels get made.
   They also want to do a new SW movie every year. Every in-between year will be a stand alone film that ties into some aspect of the overall universe. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea and will burn people out on Star Wars, ultimately ruining the brand. As it is, Lucasfilm had milked the concept hard this last decade and this will only make things worse (I’m already sick of Star Wars–something I never believed could be possible at one time).
    May the Force be with you...

DKA

Bond. James Bond.

And now, for no apparent reason, some random James Bond stuff...

Worst James Bond movie ever: Moonraker.

Who thought a movie where the main villain wants to destroy the Earth and start a new society on the moon was a good idea? They even brought back Jaws for an encore performance... and lasers galore. If you want a good spy movie set in space, try the second Austin Powers movie instead (at least it knew it wasn't serious!)


Worst (or is it the best?) Bond title ever: Octopussy.

Do I really need to say more? :)

Best James Bond ever: Daniel Craig.

After seeing Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace again recently, I've concluded Craig's depiction of Bond is the most interesting and compelling interpretation, well, ever (I grew up during the Roger Moore era, so yeah...)  Of course honorable mention must also go to Sean Connery because...y'know, he's Sean Connery (and he originated the role).

Worst James Bond ever: Roger Moore.
He was an okay actor but he got all the really cheesy scripts (as mentioned above). The Moore era really is best forgotten.


Best Bond theme ever: Hard to call... I always loved A View to a Kill by Duran Duran but really there's been a lot of great ones out there. Die Another Day by Madonna, The Living Daylights (one of the dumber titles for a Bond movie out there) by A-Ha isn't bad... Live and Let Die by Wings...Another Way to Die by Jack Whyte and Alicia Keyes... even Skyfall (by Adele) ain't bad.

Celebrate 50 years of Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 with Skyfall, which opens in theatres November 9th everywhere. Don't miss it!

Story excerpt...

A proof-of-concept, if you will, for the George Washington: Zombie Dawn story. Perhaps more will follow at some future date. Perhaps not. Time will tell! :)


 http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/thunder888/story.pdf



Comments are welcome, as always. 

A Classic in the making?

In the tradition of literary classics such as "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", "FDR: Nazi Kraken" and "Bill Clinton: DEA Supernatural", comes an awe-inspiring new tale of presidential greatness....



WE THE PEOPLE...

1776. A group of men struggle and yearn to build a wondrous new republic. A place where all can be free to think and act as they please, subservient to no crown or foreign power. Where all men are brothers and all enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

America.

The chosen steward of this bold utopia is a seasoned soldier and statesman named George Washington. A beacon of trust and dignity among the founding fathers and beloved by his fellow men.

Despite his valor and charisma, trouble pursues the valiant hero. Washington and his wife Martha are weathering rough seas in their own relationship. Their only child is dead, drowned in a terrible accident that neither could have foreseen but which now threatens to tear them apart.

ZOMBIE DAWN.

After years of war and struggles to keep the people united, all his efforts may be for naught as his brother in-law Thomas Jefferson commits a terrible atrocity against the embattled Cherokee people when he takes their Princess, the famed Sacagawea, as his bride. Her father, Chief Crazy Horse, will not take this grievous insult to his people and plots the ultimate revenge–he will raise the dead to destroy the fledgling nation and free his people of the menace he perceives.

And just how is the rival British-affiliated nation of Canada involved in the conspiracy to destroy the United States? Washington is uncertain but he knows their Prime Minister, a terrifying man named Pierre Trudeau, is corrupt and desperately craves the power Washington himself wields.

Can Washington survive the maelstrom of dark supernatural power leveled at him? Or will his dream of a united people be torn asunder.


Experience the secret, not-so-true tale behind an American icon!
       
GEORGE WASHINGTON: ZOMBIE DAWN

Something to Believe In...

    Religion is a divisive issue. Is there a Supreme Being that created us all? Or did life just evolve somehow? The idea of offering penance to a deity has been around as long as man has existed.
    Over the past two thousand years many terrible things have been done in the name of God. People of other faiths have been oppressed, persecuted and even murdered. Children have been molested, the weak minded have been lead about to and fro by men who use God to have their own way. It has not even stopped to this day and age.
    Is Religion fundamentally bad? Is it wrong to have faith in an all powerful Creator? It’s a decision we all must come to in our own time and our own way. If that spiritual need is present in your heart, or alternatively absent, then you should do whatever you feel is right for you.
    Stripping away the politics of the matter, a system of belief where people attempt to better themselves is not fundamentally bad. Can anyone really say teaching people to love one another is a bad thing? Tolerance, understanding and love are things we need more of in this world as well an ability to step into another’s shoes and see their perspective, whether or not we ultimately agree with it.
    Beliefs are an important aspect of a person’s character. Even more so in fiction. While I can know someone in real life and not be clear on their every defining character belief it would be death for a writer not to expound upon these qualities within the confines of a fictional tale. A character with no beliefs is hollow and inaccessible to the reader. 
    Often, writers don’t give characters actual religious beliefs. Either because they’re atheists themselves or perhaps they don’t feel like putting up with the hassle that will inevitably bring when a reader who disagrees with that point of view assimilates the material and protests. Primarily being a SF writer myself I haven’t ventured much into the territory myself, more often because it doesn’t seem like it really matters to the character in the circumstances presented.
    If a character believes in God–or doesn’t–it can be an effective story tool, assuming the writer had the competency to make it interesting and relevant in-context to the character’s world view or journey within the story. Simply portraying a character as a redneck hick because of his religious views, or contrarily as a godless liberal, is sloppy writing and demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding of the fundamentals of character building. People are not stereotypes and a character cannot afford to be either.

    To demonstrate, take Star Trek V. The main antagonist, Sybok, embarks on a journey to find the Vulcan paradise Sha-ka-ree. There, he hopes to meet God himself and learn the meaning of existence. It’s a terrible movie but does manage to effectively use a character’s religious drive to compel him toward his ultimate goal in life. Imagine what a well written story could do with something like that.
    Beliefs are important. No matter where a character gets them, they define their very existence. Whether from religion, a good parent or a role model, a character learns to be a good person. To trust in strangers, offer help to those in need and spread love around. Conversely, the same can be said for negative tendencies–a character learned to be cruel and inhumane, to take from the weak and spread misery. Our life experiences help define our beliefs and make us who we are.
    Of course, a character has to learn and grow in context of the tale a writer is telling too. If a character doesn’t learn or change from their experiences, what is the impetus of the story? Certainly, Star Wars is about the good guys versus the bad guys on the surface level. But on a deeper level, it’s also about Luke Skywalker moving from the role of a subservient adolescent to the role of a man and assuming all the responsibilities that being the last of the Jedi encompasses.
(I am aware, of course, that one can tell a story where the character learns nothing. But the more satisfying visceral stories always have some element of change to them. Something the reader/viewer can take from the tale, even if it does end up being a relatively straight forward concept such as maturity).
    Religion and belief can also be effective in a story when it comes to the examination of whether people are inherently good or evil. Are we born a certain way or do we learn behavior along the way? Perhaps it’s a mixture of the two? If we are born a certain way, inclined to good or cursed with evil, why is that so and can we do anything to fight nature. Are we free willed or destined to a certain path... If we are born neutral, why do men ever incline their nature toward doing bad? Is it malice or self interest? The possibilities are endless and interesting in a capable writer’s hands.
    The best tales are reflections of real life. Tales of good and evil. Of belief that motivated a character to make one of two choices along their life path. Whether they brought hope to the oppressed or pain and misery to others. Whether they can, or even should, stray from whatever path they have chosen and the end results of doing, or not doing, so.

DKA

Continuity Cop...

    Everyone likes their fiction to make sense, no matter what form it takes. For the most part, it does. Writer, artists, film makers, etc. go out of their way to make their plot and whatever points they’re trying to make understandable to their audience. Badly written fiction can fly in the face of this, as can projects rushed out before someone’s considered the idea carefully or if someone’s not properly edited it.
    There’s continuity that matters and continuity that doesn’t. Ridley Scott’s recent production Prometheus is set in the same universe as his seminal work, Alien. For the most part it works as it is but there is one glaring continuity issue that goes unexplained... in the original film, the Space Jockey as it’s known, is around twenty feet tall. The Engineers/Space Jockeys in Prometheus seem to all be around eight feet tall. This is necessary for them to be comparable to the humans in the film in the practical sense but the size discrepancy is never addressed in-story. Is it just a retcon–a this-is-how-it-is-now-deal-with-it situation or is there some reason they’re smaller that was cut from the theatrical edit (we know at least twenty minutes were trimmed from the film). We might assume that since they have a mastery of genetic engineering that there is some reason for it–but at best all we can do is make assumptions. Try to fill in the blanks with our own logic rather then know for certain what the film makers intended (if anything).
    The discrepancy in this instance matters to me. Even if it were a simple line or two, it should be addressed somewhere. Taken together, this compromises internal story logic within the two films overall. It’s comparable to having a character act completely different between two acts of a story with no explanation given. It stands out and it shouldn’t.
    There is also continuity that doesn’t matter. Sometimes it can be a challenge deciding which is which and it always falls to personal perspective on a given concept. 
    Certain movies I tend to ignore in my own universe. Nothing after Aliens exists, as far as I’m concerned (Alien 3 is basically a rehash of the first and it’s story is depressing. I do concede the film is well produced and visually pleasing but I hate the story. Alien Resurrection is pointless and the less said about the Alien vs. Predator movies, the better). I also don’t care for Die Hard 4, Star Trek Generations, Robocop 2 and 3 or the Abrams Star Trek film.
    A great example of when continuity doesn’t matter is the Transformers concept. Even from the get-go, the original Generation One concept contradicted itself. The comic went one way and the cartoon its own. The cartoon was more widely seen and established a lot of the beloved character types the fans know and love today (monotone Soundwave, dumb Grimlock, treacherous Starscream, etc.) The comic was better written generally though, and many of its stories still stand up well even today (while the cartoon plots are dated in many instances). Both featured essentially the same characters in the same overall set-up but didn’t follow each other’s stories or internal continuity (it would have been a difficult feat but not impossible).
    The UK comic, which was in effect a third continuity (featuring the US comic’s stories and also stories that happened between issues of that comic but which may or may not have counted to the US comic continuity) tried following a loose cartoon continuity by acknowledging the events of the 2005 based Transformers: The Movie and even having some of its character time travel back and forth to the present. It was a cool idea but it ended up making things even more complicated in the final analysis as things that happened before the movie chronologically had to be retconned out–theoretically–in order for the future-set movie to happen and still make sense as it originally did. The Transmasters UK fan club of the nineties tried to do a comic and set about explaining how the Generation One comic, Generation Two comic and TF:TM could have all occurred in the same continuity (in my opinion they were so focused on the continuity fixes it interfered with trying to tell a good story in their fan comics/text stories of the time).

    To me, Transformers exist in several sub-sets. Instead of trying to make it all work together, I accept that the G1 cartoon and comic were two different continuities. End of story. The Marvel UK comic was it’s own thing, which related to the US one but was not the same “Universe” per se. With the advent of the recent Regeneration One comic, I now see Marvel’s comic as Marvel US G1 comic; Marvel UK G1 comic; Marvel G2 comic, which continues the G1 US comic; and also, Regeneration One comic that continues the Marvel G1 US comic in a different continuity all together. It sounds confusing but trying to reconcile all this contradictory information so it can work together sensibly is more effort then it’s really worth.
    I feel like I can enjoy a story, regardless of whether or not it fits with everything that’s come before. IDW’s recent Autocracy comic tells a new origin for Optimus Prime and the start of his personal battle against Megatron. It’s a great tale and I accept it for what it is. But there have been other tellings of his origin and I like those too for different reasons. I can’t accept Autocracy as the one and only definitive telling. It’s a good story and a good interpretation but I can leave room for other versions, if they end up telling a worthy tale. I don’t have to try and figure out how it all fits together in my personal universe or shun one for another. And like with the earlier examples, if I hate something (Star Trek Generations) I can completely ignore it or pretend it happened in an alternate interpretation.        
    This even appears to be happening in official media at times. Notice that Lance Henriksen played Charles Weyland in Alien vs. Predator while Guy Pearce played Peter Weyland in Prometheus. It is possible that one is the ancestor of the other. But AvP was released in 2004 and was presumably more or less the present time. Prometheus has its Weyland giving a TED speech (in a viral video. Does that count as really happening in this instance?) that takes place in 2023. They could be related but AvP 2 implies that the Yutani Corporation already exists in the present as well. It seems like Prometheus is ignoring the AvP movies all together and doing its own thing (which is fine with me. I hated the AvP movies).
    Will the Before Watchmen comics count in comic fans minds as really happening? DC Comics is counting on them being accepted but many despise the very idea of their existence. Watchmen is beloved by many–if people despise the idea of prequels they don’t have to accept them as part of the “real” story if they chose not to. The reverse also applies.
    Taking this a step further, we define our reality through our perspective. We gather information from varied sources then act on it. We can decide what’s important in life, be it something as trivial as fiction or even more important matters (it seems like that’s what certain political parties excel in. Not always a good thing but true despite it). One man can see himself as outgoing while others interpret him as shy. A person can be seen as a jerk by some but a saint by others. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Perhaps both are depending on the circumstances.
    As long as a story is good, I’ll like it. Continuity be damned. It may fit my idea of the “real” way it happened or it may not. In the end, it has to entertain me above all else. If it doesn’t then the rest is irrelevant.

DKA