The Brilliance of ABC's The Bachelor

The Bachelor debuted in 2002, at a time when the rise of reality TV in popular culture was starting to accelerate. This was two years after Survivor first aired. The Bachelor would go on to a few spinoffs, including The Bachelorette. Two years later, Singapore's Mediacorp followed with its own Bachelorette, named Eye For A Guy. What makes The Bachelor brilliant? In modern society, it is normal for men to chase attractive women. And some women have a reputation for being difficult to chase, especially the attractive ones. So the game of men chasing women, is normal. Now what would take an attractive woman, or a demanding woman, from a developed society, to be so attracted to a guy, it is her who initiates the chase? Answer: The guy must be an eligible bachelor. And the producers of The Bachelor probably understood this. Which is probably why they did not start with The Bachelorette. Men chasing attractive women is an everyday scenario. And once The Bachelor gains an audience, The Bachelorette was produced. Eye For A Guy misses this point. Mediacorp probably thought: Singapore is a traditional patriarchial society, and it is the men who must chase the women. New seasons of The Bachelor are still airing as I write. Previous bachelors and winning contestants are still tabloid fodder. Testaments to the cotinued interest in the show.

Ghostbusters reboot is worth watching if you aren't snobbish

The Ghostbusters reboot pays homage to the original film, but takes its own creative direction. As summer popcorn flick, it is good. Nothing groundbreaking. Arguably, Paul Feig achieved his goal as stated in interviews: to entertain the audience. I am aware of how divisive audience reviews are in the United States. But for Singaporeans, it should be entertaining. What really struck me was the social commentary and the feminism displayed. Nothing groundbreaking or deep, yet intelligent enough for a summer popcorn flick. From a highly authoratative "expert" who gets no doubts from society, to issues of racism and internet trolling, to gender role reversals. Should Feig be allowed a sequel? I don't think that is an important question. In fact, the movie should not be a serious point of discussion. The big question is: why are we not getting more Hollywood movies with starring roles for women? It is the American cinema culture that is the problem.

Superhero comics are childish!

And there is a lot of truth to that. This topic has been debated many times. Those who disagree with the statement argue that the genre is a form of escapism, just like every other genre of entertainment. Romance in movies rarely dealt with relationship problems. Hollywood World War II movies are mostly one-sided, leaving out the British and Russians. The superhero genre has been judged too harshly. Here's an explanation written for the common Singaporean. Although there are a lot of movies are unrealistic, there are many movies that try to be realistic. For example, Downfall. Superheroes however, can never be real. They do not exist. Costumed vigilantes exist. Ordinary citizens who dress up in colorful costumes and holding "weapons" such as pepper spray or batons. But superheroes, as depicted in comic books, do not exist. Thus the superhero genre is doomed to being unrealistic. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, a global surveillance program was discovered within S.H.I.E.L.D., putting doubts on the moral and ethics of Director Nick Fury. This was overturned, when Hydra was found to be behind the program. Effectively, the heroes continue to be heroes, clean and pristine, while all bad things can be attributed to villains. This does not reflect the reality behind NSA and PRISM. There are no comic book villains behind NSA. No terrorists either. No al-Qaeda, no neo-Nazis, no whatever. Just NSA, and perhaps George W. Bush's administration. Only with Captain America: Civil War, did the superheroes finally get some blame. Except, it was overshadowed by the villainy of Helmut Zemo. What about the motives of villains? Weak at best. Ronan could not accept peace. The Red Skull and Hyrda are megalomaniacs who wanted to conquer the world because they are... evil. The fake Mandarin did not have any motive, nor any demands. Zemo seeked vengeance for his family. That makes Loki and Zemo the deepest villains. There is no radical or fundamental religion involved. No desire of economic expansion via territorial occupation, nor territorial dispute. Now we get to Watchmen. Commonly claimed as depicted realistic superheroes. Alan Moore prefers "realistic", with the inverted commas. Putting Watchmen beside al-Qaeda or PRISM, the difference in complexity becomes apparent. Watchmen is far from realistic. Rorschach, Owlman, the Comedian, all of them flawed and misunderstood heroes. It's like saying the United States is attacked by terrorists because the country is a symbol of freedom, and the price to pay for that freedom is the crazy stuff going on in the US. Not even close to reality.

Now everyone is a Marvel nerd!

It began with Lord of the Rings. An epic, cinematic trilogy to rival the first Star Wars trilogy. With that, came the rise of the pseudo-nerds. People who would otherwise, never touch science or fantasy fiction. People who would rather proclaim themselves stupid than go anywhere near an intellectual topic. But when the LotR movies came, these people became "experts". They wanted their friends to know that they are "experts". They announce trivia and speculate about sequels. "My friends, I am the expert. Listen to me." And then there is the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

It is great to see so many comic book movies being churned out at such rapid rates. As of now, Captain America: Civil War is in cinemas, and X-Men: Apocalypse is slated to follow. Some thing is lost because of all this. The intimate exclusivity fans have with the comics and publishers. The fans who were there before the movies. The Marvel Zombies. The DC fanboys. And not the least, fans of Image, Top Cow etc. We hear these pseudo-fans proclaim in our face how awesome Marvel is. Sure it is, and that is why we were there before the cinematic universe. We were the first to get excited over Samuel L. Jackson's cameo in Iron Man. We dreamed about Avengers and Justice League going onscreen, long before they did. We speculated about these movies, then only imaginary, long before they did. We were disappointed when we thought these movies would forever stay imaginary. We the fans, were so happy, when talk of an Avengers movie started. We didn't think it was possible. But it came, and the outsiders joined us in celebration. We couldn't believe how lucky we were.

To the pseudo-fans, I just want to say this. I know you want to be an expert. I know you want to impress that girl with your knowledge. Or your friends, or your family, or relatives, or even colleagues. We are glad you have joined us. But seriously, that knowledge is just comic book trivia. It is only entertainment. A lot of it has no value. Not every comic book is The Killing Joke or Sandman. Your knowledge, that you found and learned easily just by googling and browsing wiki pages. It's popcorn. I hope you feel very proud of and smart about yourselves, finally having "special" knowledge. And don't you forget, us fans... we were there before you were. We supported Marvel and DC and Image and Top Cow etc with our money, long before you did. You get to be an "expert", only because of us. Cheerio.

Originality in Ant-Man

Ant-Man is simply a heist movie, with redemption as its theme. Very simple. When was the last great heist film? Ocean's Eleven. Or perhaps one of the sequels. The heists films that came before cannot do what Ant-Man can. At most, heists films feature the use of high tech gadgetry. But the use of comic book superpowers? It is refreshing to see that Marvel is still able to achieve a good level of originality, at this point. Putting a comic book superhero in a heist has been done in print. Seeing it on film is...... new. I wonder how many more ways we can refresh old genres by simply combining them. Until Hollywood figures it out, every genre works with zombies. Every.

Review: Jim Henson's The Musical Monsters of Turkey Hollow (Archaia Press)

Originally developed by Jim Henson and his longtime collaborator Jerry Juhl for television, Musical Monsters never got produced. Enter Archaia Entertainment and Roger Langridge, who have brought the Muppets onto the comics page. Unfortunately, Musical Monsters does not translate well to comics.The plot is short and simple. The "monsters" referred to in the title are extraterrestrial beings. Each monster gives off a distinct sound. Together, the monsters harmonize and make music. Musical Monsters would likely have been a musical show, with plot time focusing on the monsters' musical performances. However, this is not possible to depict in the comics page. Readers are required to imagine what the monsters sound like. The book provides notes on the pre-production of the television show, as well as snippets from the original script. Photographs of the monster muppets are also featured. If you are a fan of Jim Henson, this book is a published record of Henson's nearly lost work. Otherwise, it's not that good.

Spy (2015): The feminist action movie

Spy is an amazing movie. And it is pro-feminist too, passing the Bechdel Test with an A+! The movie stars Melissa McCarthy, who was last seen in Tammy (2014) as a crude, fat and ugly woman. Spy's Susan Cooper however, is portrayed as an intelligent and extraordinarily capable CIA agent, even outshining Jude Law's James Bond-esque character. Jason Statham's character, former CIA agent Rick Ford, is the bumbling, over-the-top comic foil, symbolizing the follies of the male ego. Spy is like a good Marvel movie, full of action, laughs and an acceptable or good plot. It doesn't shy away from violence, choosing instead to showcase violence in all it's bloody and gory splendor. Yet, the violence is always juxtapose with humor. One thing that made me slightly uncomfortable is how capable and skilled Susan is. She probably isn't any more capable and skilled than James Bond in the pre-Daniel Craig era, but yet, it felt a little uncomfortable to see female action star who does not look like a hot, sexy femme fatale. Which means one thing: I have been conditioned by Hollywood to be comfortable with specific stereotypes in movies. In fact, a lot of laughs come from Susan's constant struggles with her colleagues' stereotypical views of her. I am glad Spy got produced, because it shows that anyone, even the most unlikely of actors, can be stars of action movies. It is a direction Hollywood has not explored to the fullest. Spy simply proves that the normal stereotypical roles we watch in Hollywood can be reversed or subverted, and by doing so, bring novelty to otherwise overused tropes. We need more of such movies!

Review: Sweet Tooth by Jeff Lemire (Vertigo)

Sweet Tooth is set in a dystopian future where the world has been ravaged by a disease. No! The dead do not come back to life as zombies. The remaining survivors struggle to survive. Some try to live peacefully, while others turn to evil and bullying, taking what they need from the weak. Around the start of the pandemic, animal-human hybrid children appeared. These children have a connection to the disease. The story centers mainly around Gus, a child with deer features, and Jeppard, a tired middle age man who has a tragic past. Unsurprisingly, the two are initially hostile towards each other, but grow a strong father-and-son bond as the story unfolds. They not only struggle to survive in the dystopian world, but become involved in the mystery of the disease and hybrid children. What stood out for me is the threatening situations the characters are constantly faced with. Death is a constant theme. But the threat of death comes not only from the pandemic. It is the antagonists, the vile and cruel human beings who present immediate threats to our protagonists. After reading a half dozen issues in the series, it is easy to see why Jeff Lemire was chosen as a writer for DC's main line of comics. Given it's dystopian setting with disadvantaged protagonists, it reads like Walking Dead (Image Comics), except with fewer subplots.

Eternals by Neil Gaiman and John Romita Jr (Marvel Comics)

The Eternals were Marvel’s equivalent of DC’s New Gods. In fact, both were creations of Jack Kirby. Unlike the New Gods however, the Eternals were pretty much put aside after two series, except for Sersi, who had further adventures. Who better to revive the Eternals than Gaiman, a specialist in pantheon mythologies.

Originally a six issue miniseries, a seventh issue was added. This is a Gaiman comic, so don’t expect breakneck speed in plotting. The story moves quite slowly, but suitable considering Gaiman’s style. The characters and settings are first introduced in the beginning, and a mystery is presented: what happened to the Eternals? Gaiman chose character development and slow unfolding plots over action and quick pacing. Instead of big fights, we get near mystic complex sciences. The seventh issue is worthy, as it ties up all the loose plots.

The biggest issue I have with the series is that it crosses over with Marvel’s Civil War event. When Iron Man enters the picture, the mystic/dreamy feeling (which I get from the comic) of the series is interrupted. The very end is disappointing. It ends with “The beginning”, a sign that someone else besides Gaiman will handle the Eternals from then on.

Overall a very good series, if one can tolerate the punctuations of Civil War. The plots may move slowly, but at seven issues, the pace is appropriate.

Popgun edited by Mark Andrew Smith and Joe Keatinge (Image Comics)

First it was Flight, now comes Popgun. And what difference is there between the two. The editors of both books do not set any themes for their anthologies. This is nontheless that Image Comics is becoming very money-minded about its products.

With the success of Flight, it only made commercial sense to produce another theme-free anthology, the difference of which is the editors and their taste in comics. What I dislike about such anthologies is their serial comics. These anthologies are not published monthly or weekly, but rather annually (or to be more accurate with Popgun, eight months between each volume).

Readers have to wait for a long time just to follow up where the serial last ended. The done-in-one volume comics are more satisfying to read, but still not as engaging as reading a full 23-paged floppy.

Popgun is recommended for those who like comic anthologies such as Flight, or those who have never read such comics and want to give it a try. Anyone who prefers superb narration over unique artwork should stick to graphic novels instead.