Home video - how much better can it get?

When I was a kid, I had a VHS copy of Star Wars that my uncle videotaped from his laser disc. I also had copies of Jaws and Back to the Future where I taped the TV broadcasts. I watched all of these numerous times, but I'm sure that if you were to pop one in now, I would find the video quality to be completely unwatchable. It's a safe bet because I remember about a year or two after having my first DVD player, I tried to watch an official copy of The Naked Gun that I had on VHS and didn't finish it.

I never got into laserdisc, but let's face it - DVD was a huge step forward from VHS. Even if you didn't have a fancy TV, the picture quality was noticeably different. Then if you went out and got a nice flat-panel HDTV, I REALLY could tell the difference, and my VCR became more of a historical curiosity than anything else.

The step up to Blu-Ray wasn't quite as dramatic. Yeah, if you have a TV that's 42 inches or greater, you're going to see a difference - depending on the quality of the transfer. (I've seen some Blu-Rays that didn't look much better than a standard DVD, and I've seen some DVDs that looked better than some lousy Blu-Rays. These are all exceptions to the rule, but they're out there.) I'm a big enough of a movie geek where I've replaced much of my movie collection (my all-time favorites anyway) from DVD to Blu-Ray. Still, I have quite a few DVDs, and unless the transfer is really crappy, I have no problem watching them. (Recently watched the DVD of Death Proof. Looked good to me. Plus, my son has watched many Disney classics like Cinderella, Snow White, Tarzan, etc. on DVD, and I never look at them and think they could use improvement. Maybe the Blu-Ray would dazzle the hell out of me, but I'm not in a rush to re-purchase these titles.)

So what's next? 4K and eventually 8K. Right now you can buy 4K TVs, and there is some 4K content out there streaming from Netflix. Apparently you have to own a really big TV to notice the difference and/or sit really close to the screen (like 65 inches - mine's only 50, and I'm kinda fine with it).

I dunno. I sit there and see maybe more creases and cracks in the faces of actors than I want to see sometimes. I've never felt the need to see more.

Let's face it, we live in a capitalistic society that's always trying to get us to buy stuff. They tried to get us all on board with 3D TVs, but you don't see too much of that around anymore. Now it's 4K, but I'm not sure if the average consumer - many of whom are still buying DVDs - feels like he needs more. Eventually it's going to get to a point where it simply can't look any better, and I think that we're getting pretty close to that point here.

The main thing is that I don't want to replace my movie collection again. Then again, that might not be too bad, as it seems that more and more people prefer to stream their movies, and physical copies of movies are becoming less and less popular - which is why I can find sets of 4 Blu-Ray movies for $20 at Costco.

Then again, maybe our entire economy will collapse if people learn to be happy with what they have. Forget I said anything. GO OUT AND SPEND YOUR MONEY!!!

Arguments against Vegetarianism

Okay, okay, okay - the title of this blog post is trolling a bit. If you're looking for some sort of take-down of vegetarianism here, you're just not going to find it. Why is that?

Because basically there isn't really any argument against vegetarianism. From everything I've read, it's at-worst a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice. At best, it's the smart move to make, whether for ethical or health reasons. (And please realize that I'm not talking about vegans. That seems to be another story which I haven't researched enough.) It's my understanding that there are a few things that vegetarians need to consider when it comes to staying healthy, but it's not enough to make a big deal about it or be a deterrent.

So why am I not a vegetarian? Well, I like meat. A lot. I did an experiment where I went a month without eating meat, and while it was actually kind of fun for the first couple of weeks, I quickly grew tired of it. I considered doing it again, but my wife wasn't on board, and I'm the one who does all the cooking. It's funny because she tends to eat less meat per meal than I do, but she's gotta have it maybe even more than I do. As for my son? The boy loves chicken, and he'd probably start to get on me about giving him a grilled cheese sandwich every single night. (Your choices are already limited when you have a three year old - although tonight he happened to eat nothing but carrots and a bit of salad for dinner.) While I suppose that I could stand to have at least a few vegetarian lunches per week, I'm also too lazy to make two different meals each night. One last issue is that when I eat less meat, I tend to eat more carbs, which isn't really good for me either.

A secret part of me hopes that when he gets older he'll make the ethical choice to go vegetarian. I don't know if that would necessarily force me to become vegetarian, but I would completely support him and help him in any way that I can, which would probably naturally result in myself eating less meat. I don't know though - did I mention that he loves chicken? Normally when I cook, I'm cooking for two and a half people. When I make chicken, he packs away enough that I have to make enough for four people. (I'm exaggerating...but only a little.)

So, are there any arguments against vegetarianism? I can only think of a few, and these aren't against vegetarianism in general but against some of the more extreme comments that I've heard in the past. I'm going to assume that these views represent the minority of vegetarians.

One attitude that I've gotten from (just a few) vegetarians is this idea of: "How could you even do such a thing as eat meat?" You know, like it's this new fad that just started recently. The fact is that human beings have been eating meat for a long time. Not only that, but eating meat led to our brains developing the way that they did. What this means is that eating meat is what made us human to begin with. The irony of this is that had we humans never eaten meat, we would have never been able to advance to a position where we could make a choice about whether we eat meat or not.

There was a show on the National Geographic Channel that I was watching where a suburban American family lived among an indigenous tribe in Central America. (I think that they were in Panama, to be more specific.) The mother's vegetarian sister came for a couple of days and criticized the fact that the people there were eating a chicken. You know, because they could  have just gone down to the local Whole Foods in the middle of the frikken' jungle and picked up some perfectly acceptable soy substitute! Again, I'm sure that most vegetarians realize how silly this is, but the fact of the matter is that if society completely crumbles and we have to resort to a hunter/gatherer, then you'll be a damn fool to not eat meat.

I don't remember the precise details, but I have a coworker whose significant other is a vegan. However, when she went to Africa (don't remember the exact country - we're talking sub-Saharan though) she ate goat. Why? 'Cause otherwise she'd starve! I'm hoping that she represents the majority of vegetarians and vegans who realize that their lifestyle is a luxury that's afforded to them by modern society. Sure, there might be some exceptions, depending on what part of the world we're talking about, but overall that's pretty true.

So yeah, vegetarians, you win. You guys are right. But if your prehistoric ancestors made the same choice as you, you wouldn't have been able to make that choice. (Did I just blow your mind?)

Anti-GMO - who benefits?

Cui Bono?

If there's one thing I hate, it's when people who are on my side continue to propagate falsehoods in the name of our mutual cause. I see this sometimes with atheism, as there are atheists who tout the load of bullpucky, Zeitgeist, as a good resource for debunking the Jesus story. There's also the oft-repeated myth about the similarities between Jesus and the Egyptian god, Horus. I'll admit to having fallen for that one, and I may have even shared it on Facebook when I first saw it. Still, I like to question everything, and it started to sound suspicious whenever I'd look into books and websites on Egyptian mythology and yet I couldn't find these Jesus-like attributes to Horus anywhere.

I would hope that those who are concerned over GMOs would have the same point of view, because there's a lot of nonsense out there. I've already shared the link about the rats with tumors, but I've found some more bunk that's out there. There's the story about the Kraft Mac & Cheese label. There's another one about deadly Monsanto corn. Oh, and Monsanto cucumbers supposedly give you genital baldness.  Probably the most egregious one involves the claim that GMO insulin causes Type 1 Diabetes in those who have Type 2 Diabetes.

No matter how you feel about this issue, I think we can all agree that telling lies helps nobody. Also, this is starting to beg the question - who is benefiting from all of this misinformation? Why is it going out there in the first place? Do the people who put this stuff out there know that they're lying? And if they are, why are they doing it?

I am going to propose no definitive answer on this. However, people who lean toward the anti-GMO/pro-organic side will tell you that you should be aware of the sources you investigate. After all, there are companies who have a direct interest in making a profit, and there are plenty of examples where corporations will stretch the truth in order to satisfy the bottom line. (See: bottled water companies.) This is a good point, but I think that's only the first step. You need to seriously question EVERYBODY.

Whenever I go to Costco, the people who give out the free samples are always very sure to announce when their products contain no GMOs and are organic (other selling points - no high fructose corn syrup, and no gluten). Check out Whole Foods, and those are selling points there as well. Now, I'm not trying to demonize either one of these companies (although I might take Whole Foods to task for their selling of homeopathic "medicine") but let's face facts - they're not charities. They're businesses, and they'll do what they need to do to make money.

Now, you might say that those labels are the equivalent of saying: "Our food doesn't contain rat poison." I don't think that anybody would fault them for using that as a selling point of that sort of thing was a genuine concern. Maybe they're using those labels for good reason, but the fact is, it's a selling point - whether the reasons are legitimate or not.

Honestly, I'm not saying that these companies are to blame for all the misinformation that's making the rounds. I think that a more likely suspect is the various "health" websites out there who use sensationalism and alarming headlines to achieve page hits (and links to whatever snake oil that they're selling).

I just think that asking the question "Who benefits from this?" is one that you should ask of everything. The answer won't always be something sinister, but it's always worth asking.

Thoughts on Macbeth

A couple of months back, I wrote my thoughts on the play Hamlet after having taught it for ten years. I've also written my thoughts on Romeo and Juliet. I figured that there's one more play where I have a bit to say about it, and that's Macbeth. I've taught that one for as long as I've taught Hamlet, but I've also taught it a few times during summer school (to mixed results). Here's some stuff that stands out to me:

Macbeth is difficult to know - Scholars and armchair Shakespeare enthusiasts are known for pondering what's going on in Hamlet's head, but I find the Thane of Glamis to be even more impenetrable than the Prince of Denmark. With Hamlet, you at least have all those analytical soliloquies to pour over. With Macbeth, you have soliloquies, but I'm still not entirely sure what to make of this guy. When I teach the play, I always state that his fatal flaw is that he's ambitious, but that never completely satisfies me as to why he does what he does. It seems to me that if that was solely what was motivating him, he'd have some satisfaction in being the king, but he doesn't seem to enjoy it even for an instant.

There's some implied backstory - You can't tell me that when Macbeth and Lady Macbeth decide to kill King Duncan that it's a brand new idea to them. Macbeth gets some prophecies from the witches, he writes his wife a letter about it, and when he gets back to tell her that Duncan's going to be spending the night in the castle, she starts going on about how he needs to look like "the innocent flower but be the serpent under it". He then responds with "We will speak further."

If this was some new idea, he would have said, "What'choo talking about, Willis?" (Or something like that.) But oh no, he knows exactly what she has in mind. That's because this is a conversation that they've had before.

Age matters - From my understanding, the Macbeths are usually an older couple or middle-aged at the very least. In Roman Polanski's version, he casts a younger couple. I think you're almost telling a different story depending on which you choose. If it's an older couple, they've seen life pass them by and other, less worthy, individuals rise to the top. This becomes their chance to get what should have been theirs. If they're younger, they're maybe a bit less sympathetic. as they see their chance for greatness and have little desire to wait for it. (Although Macbeth does toy with the idea when he thinks for a moment that maybe chance will crown him "without (his) stir".

There ain't much that's funny - Maybe some people will argue the point that there's some black comedy in the play, but from my understanding, this play really takes you down the darkest passages of the human experience. Even the one bit of comic relief, featuring the Porter, is macabre humor. I think that this is why some folks have a hard time engaging in this play. Hamlet jokes around, and you've got plenty of fun word play in Romeo and Juliet. With this one? Man, it's kind of a bummer.

I must point out the following - I thought this would be a short entry. I'm tempted to quit here, but instead I shall gratuitously use the following quote:

I am in bloodStepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,Returning were as tedious as go o'er...

It's really quite awesome what Shakespeare is saying - One of the big lessons that I try to convey when I teach tragedies is that it's not good to think of them as simply being sad. There are many reasons for this, but in the case of Macbeth, Shakespeare is reminding us of something that saves us human beings from being completely depraved, and that is the human conscience. Yes, Macbeth commits horrific acts and even gets away with it for some time. But even if the united Scottish/English army didn't come marching (tree branches in hand) on Dunsinane Hill, he'd still have to live with what he did. By far the worse punishment on him was dealing with his own guilty feelings for what he did. He'd "sleep no more" and his mind was "full of scorpions". The guy would probably never see a moment of happiness again.

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas in incarnadine,
Making the green one red.

Macbeth even tries to get around his guilty conscience when he has Banquo killed. Instead of doing the bloody deed himself, he hires some murderers. However, the playwright isn't going to let him off the hook that way, as Banquo's ghost makes an appearance at dinner.

This is easily my favorite part of the entire play. The first words out of his mouth to the ghost are, "Thou canst not say I did it! Never shake thy gory locks at me!" It's so great because it's such a psychologically realistic reaction. Yeah, it technically wasn't HIM who did it - but he knows damn well that it's his fault. And then Macbeth completely freaks out. Here's a guy who carves his way through Irish mercenaries and for dessert kicks some Viking ass, but he's completely transformed into a whimpering coward. The man can handle anything...except his guilty conscience.

What man dare, I dare:Approach thou like the rugged Russian bear,The arm'd rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan tiger;Take any shape but that, and my firm nervesShall never tremble: or be alive again,And dare me to the desert with thy sword;If trembling I inhabit then, protest meThe baby of a girl. Hence, horrible shadow!

And what Shakespeare does with Lady Macbeth drives that message home even further. She puts on a brave face throughout the entire ordeal, but eventually she succumbs to madness due to her bottling up all of her guilty feelings.

What kind of a world would this be if we (well, except sociopaths anyway) never felt bad about the things we did?

Macbeth's not a villain - Well, he's not a villain in the sense that Richard III is a villain. Richard III is almost mustache-twirling in his maliciousness, but you never see that in Macbeth. Not only that, but he's aware that what he's doing is horrible, and he doesn't try to make justifications for it and insist that he's a good guy. The audience is forced to contemplate the consequences of horrific acts because we're given a character who feels empathy just like you and I do. Too bad he just didn't think ahead about those consequences. I bet that Hamlet would have though.

As the play goes on, he becomes colder and more ruthless. His first murder was to get ahead. His second (Banquo) was to secure his position as King. His third, the killing of Macduff's family, is brutal and senseless. By that point, yes, he's a villain.

However, we see a glimmer of the human inside of him before the play wraps up. He tells Macduff, "My soul is too much charged with blood of thine already." (Keep in mind that this is before he learns of Macduff's C-section birth.) He doesn't want to fight the guy - not because he's scared. (After all, he fights him even when he learns that Macduff fits the prophecy of one who can defeat him.) He doesn't want to fight him because he's realized the horror that he's committed against the man, and he doesn't want to do any more.

Of course, by this point, it's all too late, and Macbeth absolutely must meet his fate. But still, he's an honorable man who mad the worst choices a person can make.

He comes full circle - At the start of the play, we know Macbeth for being a brave warrior. He then progresses into being a sneaky murderer. At the end, even though he's not fighting for a good cause, he armors up and is willing to take on two armies all by himself. (Pretty much everybody has deserted him by that point.)

Why should I play the Roman fool, and die
On mine own sword? whiles I see lives, the gashes
Do better upon them.

Macduff, the ultimate character foil - Wanna know why it's not Malcolm who gets to kill Macbeth? (It happened that way in history, ya know!) It's because it's Macduff's prerogative. In every way that Macbeth goes wrong, Macduff does the right thing. He's brave and loves Scotland, but he's not willing to stab anybody in the back, and he's loyal to the rightful king. Plus, he knows that being a man means having feelings, as he weeps for his murdered family, saying that he must feel his loss "as a man".

I cannot but remember such things were,
That were most precious to me.

Mabeth and Lady Macbeth seemed to be under the impression that being a man means being ruthless and willing to kill without feeling. Considering that Macduff is the victor, I guess we can tell what Shakespeare thought what being a man was really all about.

Scotland's a better place in the end - Sure, history will tell you otherwise, but Shakespeare played really fast and loose with historical details when it came to this play. (The real Macbeth was actually known for being a pretty good king.) The bottom line is that Malcolm is a better king than his dad for two very important reasons.

1. He leads from the front. The rightful king is right there in the thick of things during the last battle. His dad had to have some bloody captain tell him what the hell was going on while Macbeth and Banquo were kicking ass on his behalf.

2. He's a better judge of character. Duncan trusted Cawdor, and when he lamented that there's "no art" to telling what's going on in a guy's head, he turned around and praised Macbeth, who just earlier had been toying with the thought of regicide. Malcolm? He does an elaborate series of lies just to make sure that Macduff is on the up and up.

Final thoughts - I recently listened to the audiobook of A.J. Hartley's novelization of Macbeth. (Alan Cumming, who has a terrific and authentic Scottish accent, did the audio.) Anybody who's a fan of the play should check out either the book or the audiobook. It's not a dumbed-down version of the play, nor is it a straight-ahead adaptation of the play. It's a retelling of the story, making use of the strengths of a novel. It opens up the story quite a bit and delves deeper into the characters, providing some motivation that the play leaves somewhat ambiguous.

Man, I thought this blog would be short! Go figure there's lots to say about one of Shakespeare's plays.

My new book: "Little Kids are Full of Crap"

When I was three years old, my step-grandfather died. He choked on his food, and I remember him falling to the ground while my grandmother tried to save him. I then remember firefighters coming into my grandmother's house while my older sister insisted that I stay in the other room and out of the way.

The thing is, I have vivid images of this in my mind, and for most of my life, I swore that I witnessed him dying. Now that I'm an adult and a father, I think it's time to fess up that my sister was probably right when she insisted that I was in the other room the whole time. The fact of the matter is that memories aren't very reliable - especially at that age. I probably heard my grandmother tell the story so many times that I created memories in my head as to what happened.

Yeah, sure, it's possible that it happened just as I remember it. (But why would the firefighters be dressed in full firefighting gear when they weren't responding to a fire?) Or maybe I did see some stuff and my memories are altered. One way or the other, I have to accept it that three year old Lance Johnson might be full of shit.

My son is going to be four this August, and while there are a lot of things that I can tell you about him, one thing that I can say for certain is that he's not exactly the world's most reliable narrator. If he tells me about what's happened during the day, I know to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes his preschool teachers will ask about trips that, according to him, we supposedly took or plan to take, only to have my wife and I explain that we have no idea what he's talking about. Oh, and there's a monster in his room, which is why he needs to crawl into bed with us at four in the morning.

I think that it's safe to say that he's pretty normal. At this age, he doesn't quite have a grasp on what's real and what isn't. He will sometimes talk about how he's "just pretending" so the concept is starting to have an effect on him, but as of right now, I know to not take him too literally.

I also know that with the proper suggestion, I could probably convince him of anything. I think that I've written about this before, but the last time we had a thunderstorm, I informed him that Thor was outside. He then insisted that Thor was on our roof, and he wanted to invite him in to say hello. I'm sure that if I had several follow-up conversations with him, I could probably convince him that he actually SAW Thor, and if he lived in a world where most people accepted Thor's existence, he'd keep believing it until adulthood.

While I hope you'll forgive me for being a little late to the party when it comes to this topic, I can't help but think of all this when I hear about the book/movie Heaven is for Real. Yeah, yeah, I haven't read the book nor have I seen the movie, but I am aware of the claims that this work of "non-fiction" makes. Supposedly a three-year-old boy had a near-death experience, went to heaven, and some time after, he began to tell his family about his experience. Apparently, he told his parents things that he couldn't possibly know, like how he had a sister.

What's so remarkable about the sister thing is that his mother was pregnant with a daughter, but she had a miscarriage. So, how could he know about that sister? HOW COULD HE KNOW???????? It's impossible, therefore, ipso facto ergo e pluribus unum, his stories offer us incontrovertible PROOF of heaven.

Or maybe his parents did tell him about it, or they had mentioned it in conversation. Do you remember every single thing you say out loud in front of specific people? I sure as hell don't. Another possibility is that it's a coincidence. I see that as a possibility because my son sometimes talks about his non-existent sister, (not even one who died in the womb).

There's more to the story, of course, and others have already done more thorough analyses of the various claims.

What gets me is that people are so eager to believe that they don't even stop to think for just a little bit. Let's say, for argument's sake, that heaven is a real place. Let's also say that the kid actually died (no evidence seems to be provided for this). Dammit, let's even say that he experienced the afterlife. Even with all that, how silly and gullible do you have to be to believe every detail of his story (like Jesus on the rainbow horse)? I don't trust my son's account of what happened at preschool - not that I think he's particularly dishonest, but BECAUSE HE'S THREE.

I bet that a lot of people who completely swallow this story have no problem understanding that little kids are unreliable when it comes to successfully recalling the day's events, yet they completely turn off that objection when it comes to something that they desperately WANT to believe is true. (In all fairness, there have been plenty of Christians who have expressed skepticism of this story, yet they no doubt believe in heaven.)

I've already written a lengthy post on children and religious indoctrination. As of right now, the only conversations I've had with my son about any gods is when I read to him from children's books about The Bible and Greek and Norse mythology. At this age, he couldn't fully comprehend me whether I told him that God was real or not real, as he barely has a grasp on what reality even is.

I once had a woman tell me about an experience she had with her three year old son, where the two of them encountered some giant demon spider. Her whole story was in defense of prayer, as she said that her son was freaking out, but the prayer finally calmed him down. She also told me that the fact that her son also saw the demon spider (I wish that I was making this up) was "proof" that it was real.

If I wanted to be The Worst Dad Ever, I could conduct a little experiment where I could pretend to see a giant demon spider (or pick your animal/shape) and get so freaked out about it that my son would insist that he saw it as well. After all, there's a monster in his room, ya know. (Which doesn't really freak him out. He talks about it the same way I'd talk about having a fly in my room - bothersome but not enough reason to panic.)

So parents: love your children. Teach them the best you can. Listen to them. But realize - they're full of shit, and they cannot be trusted. However, they can be forgiven for it. As for adults who take their stories and sell books that dupe the general public? They're maliciously full of shit.

Thoughts on the current state of superhero movies

I was originally planning on writing this after Guardians of the Galaxy came out, but I don't feel like waiting more than a month. I'm a fan of superheroes, and I'm a fan of movies. I've got stuff to say about what's going on.

In general:

While I suppose that things can always be better, we've certainly been in a Golden Age of superhero movie making for the last decade or so. Sure, there are some bad ones here and there, but overall they've been pretty good and even the worst of them aren't as craptastic as Batman and Robin.

There is some talk of superhero fatigue though among the critics. I don't think that we're seeing it with audiences just yet, but I suppose it is possible that eventually people will lose interest when they finally get around to making that Brother Power the Geek movie. Let's break things down by studio and see who's going in the right direction and who's pushing the genre too close to a cliff.

DC Comics/Warner:

Things got off to a bad start with the disappointing Green Lantern, and even though Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy ranks as some of the best superhero movies to date, the door seems to have closed on that particular incarnation of the character. With Man of Steel, they had enough of a success to keep going with it, as Batman Versus Superman is coming at us in 2016. The rest of the recently-announced schedule is as follows:

July 2016 – Shazam
Xmas 2016 – Sandman
May 2017 – Justice League
July 2017 – Wonder Woman
Xmas 2017 – Flash and Green Lantern team-up
May 2018 – Man Of Steel 2

My biggest worry is that they're trying too hard to jump the gun and give us Justice League too soon. Obviously, they're trying to compete with Marvel, but Marvel gradually introduced us to the major players of The Avengers before teaming them all up in one movie. I'm not saying that it can't work, but it does feel a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

I'm also not that excited that Zack Snyder is down for at least Batman versus Superman and Justice League. I don't dislike him as some folks do, as I don't think that he's in the Michael Bay territory of crappy action directors. Still, I'd like to see Warner take chances like Marvel did with guys like Jon Favreau and the Russo Brothers.

Overall though, this isn't a bad plan, and I'm curious to see who they're going to get be Green Lantern. Are they going to pretend that the first movie never happened? Maybe they'll just ignore it and not necessarily go out of their way to contradict it. I wouldn't think that it's the worst thing in the world to bring back Ryan Reynolds, but for diversity's sake, it might be cool to get a black guy play the John Stewart Green Lantern and pattern his character off of the way they did it on the Justice League cartoons.

As for Ben Affleck as Batman? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I've learned to be pleasantly surprised with casting choices (Heath Ledger, Anne Hathaway, even Michael Keaton) in the past that I'm willing to give him a chance. The man does have talent, and he's a fan of the comics, so the potential is there.

I should also point out that Sandman isn't a superhero story if they're basing it on the Neil Gaiman stuff. Personally, I think that would be a great idea to do that for some storytelling diversity.

Marvel

Not everybody realizes this, but the movie rights to all of Marvel's characters do not belong to one studio. Fox and Sony have owned the rights to some characters since before Marvel got their own studio. This is why we're not seeing Spider-Man and Wolverine join The Avengers as they did in the comic books, and while such a thing is technically possible, it would require some major studios collaborating in an unprecedented venture. It should also be noted that if Sony and Fox stop making movies with the characters they have the licenses to, the rights revert back to Marvel. This is why Fox made a Daredevil movie, but now Marvel will be using the character as part of their Netflix lineup of shows.

With this in mind, let's break down the Marvel characters by studio:

Marvel Studios (The Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Daredevil, etc.)

These guys really are the gold standard right now for superhero movies. While one can argue that the Dark Knight trilogy gave us better movies, Marvel hasn't really given us any duds. What's the worst one? The Incredible Hulk? Thor? Neither one of those are what I'd consider to be bad on the level that Green Lantern or Daredevil was.

Basically Marvel took things to a new level when they brought their major characters together with The Avengers. Then they continued to head in the right direction with Iron Man III and Thor: The Dark World. Things got bumped up another level with Captain America: The Winter Soldier which might have been a superhero movie, but it certainly didn't feel like one. By looking directly to the comics for inspiration, we got something that a lot of people probably weren't expecting. I hope that they take a hint from this success when they make the next Thor movie, as the current comics written by Jason Aaron would make for some great movie making.

You also have the aforementioned Netflix deal, which will feature four different series: Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, and The Defenders. The last show will unite the heroes from the first three, and possibly even a few others (The Punisher, perhaps?) This has got me excited, as if you think about it, as serialized installments will be much closer to what you get to the comics. There's a lot of great comics material for Daredevil in particular that would lend itself to this format much better than it would a series of movies.

As for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., I haven't been keeping up with it, sorry to say. Maybe I'll get caught up when it eventually comes on Netflix as well.

Fox (X-Men, Fantastic Four)

These guys were looking like they were going to screw things up royally, but they've really turned it all around. Things came to an all-time low with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as it was clear that they just wanted to throw as many mutants at the screen as they possibly could without stopping to think whether it made any sense to the story or not.

We saw a real turnaround with X-Men: First Class, and things kept getting better with The Wolverine. Now they have a big hit on their hands with X-Men: Days of Future Past. I think that they have the right idea, as the last movie shows that you CAN actually have a lot of mutants so long as you keep the focus on a few main characters. Plus, it was an ambitious story to take on, and it looks like they're continuing this theme with Apocalypse.

The X-Men comics are nearly a comic book universe unto their own, and there are a lot of characters and teams that they can do some cool stuff with. There is word about an X-Force movie. I'd like to see that, along with one based on what Peter David is doing on X-Factor. Days of Future Past proved that you can get some great stuff if you look directly to the comics. Let's hope that the folks at Fox remember that.

As for The Fantastic Four,  they're getting a much-needed reboot, as the previous two films weren't very good. I don't know too much about director Josh Trank or the cast, but the latest bit of info is that it will have a "found footage" vibe to it. My first reaction to that was that I didn't like it, but now that it's sunk in, I have to wonder why not? Sure, the found footage genre may be overplayed, but we haven't seen it in a superhero movie yet. Why not try something a little different? At the very least, it doesn't seem like they're going for the same-old, same-old.

Sony (Spider-Man)

And here's where we go off the rails. I think that Sony wishes that Spider-Man was a universe unto itself the same way that the X-Men are, as there has been talk about making a Sinister Six movie, along with a Venom movie. I haven't read much about either one since the somewhat disappointing reception for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (while hardly being a flop).

Is it possible to make an interesting movie about villains? I suppose so, but this really feels like they're trying to milk the Spider-verse for all its worth. The current movie is an example of this, as it was crammed with far too many characters.

A part of me hopes that these movies will bomb and Sony will no longer find Spider-Man to be profitable for them. This, of course, would mean that the rights would return to Marvel Studios, and perhaps we'd finally get Spidey to join the Avengers.

Who's a True Scotsman?

Don't you just hate those Westboro Baptist jerks? You know, those folks who picket funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags". What a bunch of jerks. They claim to be a Christian organization, but don't worry about that - after all, they're not True Christians. See, True Christians would NEVER do the stuff they do, nor would they go around condoning such behavior. Would you believe that True Christians even support gay marriage and full equality for LGBT citizens?

Of course, some True Christians would tell you that no, there is no way that True Christians would support marriage equality. Sure, they wouldn't go around picketing funerals like Westboro Baptist, 'cause that's too over-the-top, but God clearly set out rules for what He wanted marriage to be, and Adam marrying Steve just ain't what's happening.

Whatever you do, don't ask the extremists in Westboro what a True Christian is because they'll go and tell you that it's THEM! Can you believe that? Just because they can point to various Bible verses to support their cause, they somehow think that trumps the more equality-minded Christians who can also point to Bible verses to support their cause. Clearly, The Bible is unambiguous as to this issue, just like it was with slavery. After all, it was Christians who led the abolition movement, and there was absolutely NOTHING that slave owners could have pointed to to support their cause. To say that they could would be as ridiculous as saying that The Bible says it's okay to beat your slave, so long as you don't beat him to death (Exodus 21:20).

The thing is, if you want to know what a True Christian believes, you turn to the Book of Who's a True Christian in The Bible. (Muslims, check out the Surah of Who's a True Muslim in The Koran so you know whether it's okay to blow up infidels or not.) It clearly lays out what you should and shouldn't believe. This is why we only have one denomination of Christianity, known as the True Christians.

Okay, just in case you're about to explode from all the sarcasm, my point is this: lots of Christians believe a lot of different things, and as far as I can tell, there's no real way to tell who's believing it the "right" way. The differences aren't what I'd call insignificant either. But each side will point to the verses in The Bible that helps their cause while either completely ignoring the verses that argue against it. (Or more infuriating - telling you that it actually means the opposite of what it says.)

Meanwhile, the simplest explanation doesn't seem to occur to any of them, and that is that The Bible doesn't even have a consistent message. Is there good stuff? Absolutely. Is there screwed up stuff? Yes. Is there stuff that contradicts other stuff? Yes, and that's the problem. Even Jesus, the guy that some wishy-washy freethinkers will praise, insists that all the Old Testament rules count. He also says that you have to hate your family if you want to follow him. Remember, he came with a sword, or so he says, but nobody likes to quote him on that (except maybe the True Christians, depending on who you think that is). Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that Jesus says that I like, but at least I admit that I pick and choose the bits that suit me.

You know what you never get from atheists? You never get the "He's not a True Atheist" line. All one has to do to be a True Atheist is not believe in any gods. From there, he can be anything else he wants. Of course, there are times when we have to point out that Hitler wasn't an atheist, but that's not because he was evil but because he spoke of things like divine providence - something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense for an atheist to believe. Also, we'll point out that the Communistic regimes that led to the deaths of billions of people weren't about atheism, even though much of it was led by self-proclaimed atheists. They did what they did in the name of nationalism, industrialism, worship of the state, etc. There's nothing about being an atheist that leads one to support those ideas. In other words, that would be like blaming Christianity for the actions of BTK, a notorious serial killer. Turns out that he was a regular church-goer. However, he didn't do what he did in the name of Christianity. So, his being Christian is as relevant to his crimes as Stalin's supposed atheism (one of his biographers apparently insists that he actually was a main of faith - whatever, I'll just give it to you that he was an atheist for the sake of argument) was to his.

So, who are the True Christians? I don't know, and I don't think that anybody else does either. All I know is, it's an easy way for some of them to disassociate themselves from the ones they don't like. Meanwhile, I'm stuck with all kinds of murderous atheists who are as True Atheists as I am, but that's just because the definition is such a clear one. Personally, I would be fine if everybody agreed that a True Christian was one who believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. From there. I think that umbrella would be a bit too wide for the comfort of many people though.

Oh - and in case you're wondering what Scotsmen have to do with this, I'm referring to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.