Fear the FEAR!

We humans like to connect the dots - sometimes to the point where we start adding dots so we can make better connections. I've been doing that a bit myself lately, and as I've been able to blog almost every day this summer (expect my output to drop drastically in a couple of weeks) I'm starting to piece together something that motivates much of what I write.

I'm tired of fear. More specifically, I'm tired of unnecessary fear. I have almost a knee-jerk reaction to it - the point where you could maybe even say I fear fear. Or maybe I'm just a huge fan of FDR's famous quote.

It's good that we human beings have the ability to feel fear. Imagine how long we would have survived as a species if we didn't fear all those things that wanted to eat us. One of the reasons why the dodo became extinct was because it lacked fear (as it had no natural predators until human beings showed up in their environment).

Fear is necessary, but just like a lot of our attributes that enabled us to survive, it can be pointed in the wrong direction. We are afraid of a lot of things where our fear either makes no sense or actually does us more harm than good.

How many people fear spiders? Of course, there are some that we know are poisonous and dangerous, but even when a person knows that a particular one isn't harmful, there's still a good chance of that person freaking out. Some people are afraid of bugs in general. I know I am (although ironically spiders don't bother me that much - maybe it's because they eat all of those terrifying bugs). Snakes also freak people out. You can prove to those who fear them that a particular snake isn't poisonous, but it's not going to matter. It scares the crap out of them - sometimes even paralyzing them with fear. (And sometimes people act irrationally when they do come into contact with a poisonous one because they're so scared. My dad lives on a ranch near Redding, and he can tell you some stories about people nearly getting bit by rattlers because their fear caused them to attack the snake rather than do the smart thing - slowly walk away. Crud - now that I think about it, I have a scar on my elbow from when I was a kid and ran terrified by a supposed rattler that was ten feet away from me!)

Looking back on many of my posts on religion, my chief criticisms often deal with its dependence on fear. Considering that no religion has ever been able to demonstrate the truth of its claims, I feel like I'm on safe ground saying that the use of fear (and I realize that some versions depend on it far more than others, but there's always an aspect of it there) based on religious grounds is a warrantless fear. It does nobody any good to fear things that aren't there.

Oftentimes our sense of tribalism creates unnecessary fear. We become afraid of "the other" and think that those who live differently from us are out to ruin our way of life. People think that gay people getting married is somehow a threat to them and their way of life. Men are afraid that women gaining status in society somehow threatens theirs. White people worry that as minorities gain positions of prominence that their entire world will be destroyed. I suppose that this could be an entire blog post in itself, but think of how many people totally freaked out and wanted their "country back" when Obama was elected - even though he hadn't done anything yet? Don't tell me that his foreign-sounding name and the color of his skin had nothing to do with it either. (Insert perfunctory comment about how I'm aware that there are legitimate criticisms of Obama that have nothing to do with race and that I even share some of them.)

I have been writing about the GMO debate lately as well, and I think that much of my criticism of those who are against them is due to the fact that the criticisms are based more on fear than facts. (Actually, it's because I'm a shill for Monsanto, as I'm sure at least one person out there must believe.) I'm ambivalent about labeling genetically engineered foods because although its proponents declare that it's about informing the public, it strikes me as being more about spreading fear in order to benefit the organic food industry, as I'm not entirely sure just how "informed" a person will be. (Just because Monsanto and other agribusinesses have money as their highest priority, why do people seem to act like the organic businesses are purely altruistic?)

Are there legitimate things that we should fear - and more importantly, work toward resolving? I think that there are. Climate change is something where the facts are indisputable, and we need to support politicians and businesses that are working toward dealing with that. (And one of those potential solutions is GMOs.)

If you live in the wilderness, then you should definitely be afraid of bears.

How do we deal with runaway fear? I think that this is where skepticism comes in to play. Instead of just buying into whatever fear and giving into that lizard part of your brain that makes you want to freak out at even the mention of something that seems scary, it's best to calm down, look at the evidence, and then make a decision from there. Even more important, don't carve that decision into stone. Let new information allow you to change your mind.

Wonder Woman's not cheesecake

Art: Cliff Chiang

Am I the only comic book fan who's a bit concerned over David Finch taking over as artist for Wonder Woman? I don't actively dislike him as an artist. He can do some great stuff, even though I think he might be a bit overrated. However, when it comes to Wonder Woman, I think that there's something a little bit sacred there, and I'm not sure that he's the right guy for it.

Wonder Woman might not technically have been the first female superhero, she's the one who's lasted the longest. Also, it should be noted that her creator, William Moulton Marston, had a definite agenda when he created her. He was a feminist, and he wanted to create a heroine for little girls to admire. She has frequently been used as a symbol for female empowerment, even appearing on the first issue of Ms. Magazine. Her origin story is rooted in Greek Mythology, and the current continuity has elevated her to goddess status, taking over for the former God of War, Ares.

She's kind of a big deal, and there's a long list of great artists who have drawn her adventures. The current artist, Cliff Chiang, has drawn her as tall and athletic. She looks like she can kick some serious butt. 

When it comes to comics and the depiction of women, there are some genuine points of criticism that people make. Personally, I don't think that it's necessarily so horrible that the female heroes are often depicted as "perfect" women with slender bodies and large breasts. Sure, you can argue that it sets an unrealistic expectation, but superheroes aren't realistic in the first place, and the male heroes don't exactly represent how the average male can hope to look like either. Still, there are artists who draw idealized women, and then there are those who draw pretty much all of them looking exactly the same, the only things differentiating them are their hair and outfits.

Come on.

I'm not sure that David Finch falls in the latter category, but he has been known to do one thing that I think crosses the line and goes into some egregious territory. It's an unfortunate trend with a lot of artists, and it seems to be a leftover of the "bad girl" comics from the 1990s. What I'm talking about is posing the female characters like they're posing for porn.

Check out the picture on the left. Seriously - who the hell runs like that? I'm not a prude, and I have comics that have images that are far more graphic than this, but this is just so ridiculously gratuitous and juvenile. It adds absolutely nothing to the story, and it's simply bad art. I actually read the comic on the left, and that character is The White Rabbit, a villain from Batman: The Dark Knight, a series that Finch was drawing. I was collecting that series and dropped it - part of the reason being this kind of deliberately titillating art. (I might have forgiven it if the story was at least interesting, but it wasn't.) Part of me wishes that I still had those comics, because I seem to recall some examples that made this one seem tame in comparison.

Can anybody stand like this?

Is this what we're to expect from his run on Wonder Woman? His initial promotional piece isn't too egregious, but she doesn't have the same sort of gravitas that Cliff Chiang gave her (an example of his work is at the top of this post). Her chest is strategically thrusted out, and I'm not sure that's exactly the sort of stand one would expect from a skilled warrior like Diana.

There have been some previews of the interiors that fill me with a little bit more hope. Below you'll see the pencils of an action scene with Wonder Woman giving a big old kick in the face to Swamp Thing. That one seems to be the right idea. She looks like a capable warrior, and there's enough motion and power conveyed in the image that you can practically feel it. There's no question that a kick from her would probably take off the head of an average guy.

I'm hoping that's more of a sign of what's to come, as I've really enjoyed the current creative team, and I'll probably at least pick up the first issue of Finch's run. The thing is with Wonder Woman is that there's no reason she can't be beautiful while she's busting heads. She's not a piece of cheesecake though, and she needs to be treated with a bit of dignity.

That's more like it.

Questions about GMO labeling

A couple of years ago in California, proposition 37 called for the labeling of all foods that are genetically engineered. It was narrowly defeated. When I first heard of the proposition, I was for it. When I read up on it, I was against it. I think that I may have changed my mind a few times on it, but ultimately I wound up voting against it.

To all my left-leaning friends, this is the part where you can get out your torches and pitchforks.

I'm not going to get into my reasoning as to why I voted the way that I did. I felt that it was the right decision, but I don't really remember my rationale at the time. It doesn't matter that much now because I've changed my mind on this issue.

I haven't become a big advocate of labeling genetically engineered foods (often incorrectly referred to as GMOs, or genetically modified foods). It's more that I'm just not against labeling, if that makes sense.  Why haven't I become enthusiastically on board when it comes to labeling foods? Mainly, I'm just not sure exactly what good it will do.

I've mentioned this before on my last post, but the first thing we need to get straight is the difference between genetically modified and genetically engineered. People freak out about genetically modified foods, and labeling products "No GMOs" has become a selling point. (The folks giving out free samples at Costco are always eager to point out that their particular product is "GMO free".) From my understanding, this is a bit of inaccurate advertising, as nearly everything we eat has been genetically modified. Hardly any of the vegetables we eat grow that way in the wild, and most of the animals we eat wouldn't last very long if not under the care of human beings. (Ya know, until they're killed so we can eat them, anyway.)

These have all been genetically modified through artificial selection, and humanity has been doing this since the advent of agriculture, so we're talking over ten thousand years here. So, unless you're out there hunting wild elk, or you're picking wild plants, you're eating GMOs. (I don't know how many foods you can buy in the store are grown out in the wild, but there is a chef in Denmark who uses wild ingredients. So, it is possible, just not likely.)

So, if we're going to talk labeling, the law also needs to cover accuracy in labeling, and all of the producers of organic products need to start being a little bit more honest when it comes to their labels as well. If they want to advertise themselves as being free of genetically engineered ingredients, then that at least has a bit more veracity. (Hold on though because it's going to get more complicated in the paragraph after the next one.)

I would imagine that most people who are pro-labeling are on board with me so far. Label the stuff that's been genetically engineered and stop labeling stuff as "GMO free" when it's not. (It's almost, but not quite, as bad as advertising something as being "chemical free".)

But what about the third thing? There's a third thing? Didn't I tell you that this would get more complicated? Why didn't you listen to me? A friend of mine brought it to my attention that we haven't been doing this whole selective breeding thing the exact same way for 10,000 years up until the advent of genetic engineering. What about mutation breeding?  (The short explanation is that it involves exposing seeds to radiation and/or certain chemicals to get the desired result.) That practice isn't even regulated, and I don't hear people freaking out about that - even though it's been around since the 1920s. We would need a label for that as well, right?

I realize what some people may be thinking. What's the problem, Lance? All food will be labeled "Contains GEOs", "GEO Free", or "MB" (Mutation Bred). Simple as that. Now the consumer is informed and knowledgeable.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that tells us much of anything substantial. When it comes to genetically engineered foods, there is no evidence that they cause any harm. Even if you think that they need more testing, your opinion is flying in the face of scientific consensus (and that's independent and non-profit scientific organizations). It's akin to putting warning labels on cell phones that they might cause cancer, even though there's absolutely no reason to think that they will.

Okay, that's a bit of a tangent. You can argue that it's up to the public to educate themselves on this issue and the label is simply informative and not a "warning label". I could probably write a whole blog on that, but for now I'm just going to give the voices in my head that particular point.

The GEO/GEO Free label won't tell us anything about the safety of the product. Yeah, I'm not against that, but I can't get upset about them not including it. From there, how would they go about specifying the labels on the GEO foods? Are they going to list which gene got spliced and from where it came? Would that look like anything other than a bunch of technobabble to anybody who's not a geneticist? Again, I have no problem with them making this information available, but I'm able to feel safe eating an organic carrot without being able to list off its genetic code, and if you were to explain it to me, I'd probably drift off into daydream land. Same goes for GEOs - I'm totally ignorant as to what it all means, and I reckon that's the same for most people who don't have a degree in genetics.

Same goes for the MBs. Are they going to list off the type of radiation that was used and the chemicals? When it comes to radiation, that's one of those scary words like "chemicals" and people are afraid that their skin is going to start peeling off or they'll turn into The Hulk. ("They used gamma rays to engineer these kiwis? Screw that! I know what gamma rays do!") The sun emits radiation, and while you don't want to spend hours out there, it's kinda necessary for making stuff grow, and you need that Vitamin D. As for the other scary word, "chemicals", I couldn't tell you what half the stuff is in some of the salad dressings I've bought. Am I really supposed to know what exposing certain seeds to certain chemicals is going to do? You can inform the hell out of me, I'm still not going to know what the flippin' flap you're talking about.

I'm an unenthusiastic supporter of labeling; at least, I'm not too passionate about it when it comes to the "GMO" labeling, as I don't see how much difference it will make. Even with labels, there are ways to be deceptive, like how products will list different ingredients that are all basically sugar but make it look like there isn't that much of it to people who are too ignorant to know the difference (like me). Think they won't be able to figure out a way to bamboozle you - especially when it comes to something you don't fully understand in the first place? (To the geneticists out there, I know, I know, you understand it. Feel good about yourself now?)

I can get passionate about labels in general if every product was required to be completely honest. How about homeopathic remedies with a label that says that there are no active ingredients and that homeopathy has NEVER been proven to work in controlled conditions? How about a notice before shows on "ghost hunting" and "ancient aliens" that warn the viewer that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the bullcrap that they're about to show the audience? How about labels on expensive wine that let the consumer know that most people - even the experts - can't tell the difference between the pricey stuff and the cheaper vintage?

If we're gonna label stuff, we really gotta put me in charge of it.

GMOs and the scientific consensus

Let's make one thing clear before I continue.

Truth is not determined by popular consensus - even when it's a popular consensus of experts in the particular subject.

However, I think that at least, when there is scientific consensus about a particular issue, the layperson should be given pause when his or her opinions contradict that consensus. At the very least, it should be the starting point for further research.

For instance, even though I'm not a biologist, I'm fairly good at explaining the basics of evolution. This is what I try and use when discussing the subject with somebody who doesn't believe it. While I am not averse to bringing up the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, I never make a statement like: "It's true because most scientists believe it!" I just like to bring it up because if a person thinks that it's not true, even if they defeat me in a debate, they might have a tougher time with the people who really know what they're talking about.

I'm not quite as good at explaining climate change, so I have to rely on the point about scientific consensus a little bit more. Of course, you get people who dismiss that consensus, claiming that those who endorse the idea of anthropogenic climate change are only doing so because they have some sort of financial interest at stake. 'Cause, you know, those who deny it have nothing to gain by us continuing to use fossil fuels. Yup. No money in that.

As somebody who tends to get labled as a "liberal", I think it's safe to say that many of my like-minded friends are with me up to this point. However, there is a lot of concern about GMOs, and much of it seems to be coming from the same side as people who normally agree with me on the previous two issues.

I'm probably even worse at explaining GMOs - although I know that we're not really talking about Genetically Modified Organisms, as nothing we eat hasn't been modified in some way. What we're really talking about is Genetically Engineered Organisms. In other words, the crops have been altered in a lab rather than through artificial selection.

I have been suspicious about the concerns over GMOs for quite a long time. It began years ago when somebody tried to get me to sign a petition to ban them. As little as I know now, I knew even less back then, but the nature of his argument only made me question what he was saying. He had absolutely no specific examples of harm when it came to what GMOs can possibly do to us.

I've heard concerns from some of my more sober-minded friends that while they're not saying that GMOs are dangerous, they think that there needs to be more testing. They're also pretty big on labeling. (As of now, I'm in favor of labeling, but I'm skeptical as to what good that would really do.) In other words, they express to me that GMOs are still a big question mark.

If you find yourself in either the "GMOs are killing us!" or "We need to know more about GMOs!" camp, I would ask you to consider the following:

Does scientific consensus matter to you? If it doesn't matter on the first two things, then you're at least consistent if you disregard the consensus when it comes to GMOs. However, if they're enough to make you want to at least research the issue further and question your views, then you might want to consider the following:

The consensus of independent scientific organizations (not scientists who work for Monsanto or some other "evil" corporation) is that GMOs are safe.

There's a great article by Richard Green on the Skepti-Forum about the consensus and how one can avoid sources that are misleading about the issue. Some of the associations that have made statements on the safety of GMOs include the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization. The article (and this graphic) gives the specific statements that have been made.

Of course, this doesn't mean that GMOs definitely ARE safe. However, if you're going to say that they're not, or that they need more testing, and you're really interested in the truth, then you should look into what these organizations are saying and figure out why they're wrong.

As of now, I don't know if GMOs are safe or not. However, I'm humble enough to say that the people who know more than me seem to think that they are. At the very least, I should consider what they have to say before I consider the opinion of some random website that's selling snake oil.

Doubt is a virtue

Oftentimes when a person dies, you'll hear that he or she was a person "of faith" listed along with their accomplishments and virtues. When they say this, they're specifically talking about somebody who held on to some sort of religious faith and/or faith in something that's supernatural. I think that considering faith to be a virtue is a mistake, but rather than criticizing faith - which would automatically turn off a lot of potential readers - I'm going to start by praising doubt.

I think that some folks might get a bit confused by the word "doubt" though. Obviously, you don't want to get so crippled with doubt that you're unable to do what you need to do. In other words, if you have a particular job to do, you don't want your doubt to stop you from doing it. However, there's nothing wrong with the doubt itself. For instance, I'm a teacher, and I doubt myself all the time. I sometimes wonder if I have even the slightest clue what I'm doing. I don't let that stop me from getting out there and teaching the class though. I listen to my doubts, but that's not the only thing going through my mind. To give an example, I had a former student - a particularly smart one at that - thank me recently for what I taught her, as she said it really helped her in college. That's but one example of what gets me through. I also know that I have a pretty good track record of being able to do what I set my mind to doing, and I know that when it comes to teaching, it does depend on some of my personal strengths. Still, the doubt is good, as sometimes I have some bad ideas, and if I never had any doubt, I'd never take the time to get rid of them.

There have been times in my life when I could have used a little more doubt. Years ago, my wife and I refinanced our house. My dad went along with us to listen to the spiel of the lender, and he told us that we shouldn't trust that company. We went ahead and did it anyway, and we wound up getting a pretty crappy deal. It could have been worse though - my dad's initial skepticism wound up getting us an even better deal than they were initially offering. Still, my dad told me to walk away, and I should have listened to him.

The reason why it's important to listen to your doubts is that we human beings have a tendency to believe what we want to be true. I really wanted to believe that some random company wanted to seek me out to give me a great deal. They managed to make it all sound very legit. I also really want to believe that a Nigerian Prince wants to hook me up with several hundred thousands of dollars, but lucky for me, that has all the hallmarks of a scam, so it doesn't require a lot of sifting through the facts to determine that it's bullcrap.

When you feel that doubt coming on, that means that your brain is working, and at the very least, you need to give it some consideration. Also, if somebody expresses to you that they have doubt about something, even if it's something you believe in very strongly, your reaction should be to listen to what they have to say. Why? Because their ideas might lead you to the truth of the matter.

Even within religious traditions, there is the precedent for doubt and questioning being a virtue. What if Martin Luther never doubted the teachings of the Catholic Church? Where would Christianity be today? If you're Catholic, and that doesn't impress you, then take a look at the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. He questions a lot of conventional thinking at the time. You can find the same sort of thing with Mohammed and even The Buddha. 

Unfortunately, and this is the part where I badmouth faith, the problem with today's religious traditions is that while they praise the questioning that spawned their traditions, they don't think that it should be questioned any further. When a believer tells another believer that he or she is doubting the faith, they aren't met with a "Oh yeah? Why is that? Maybe you have a good reason for it." Instead, they're told to pray or they're told to read something that will reconfirm the bias that they already hold.

The problem with being told to pray about one's doubt is that it assumes that there's something wrong with the doubt in the first place. But if you've followed my train of thought so far, you can see how even in religious tradition doubt is not necessarily a bad thing. This kind of thinking, that one must ask God to "help" deal with the doubt makes it sound like there's something wrong with the person who's feeling the doubt. They've got something that needs to be expunged. What if that doubt is leading to some truth though? The believer isn't encouraged to even consider that as a possibility.

Have a look at the story that I included (on the image with the pumpkin). It lists "doubt" along with "hate" and "greed" - things that are "yucky" and need to be thrown away. (I'm with it on the second two things.) What kind of a horrible message is this to send to children? I told my son that it was a monster that was making gurgling sounds at the swimming pool (it was the filter). He just laughed at me and said, "No it's not, daddy." I couldn't have been more proud of him. Also, the day that he figures out that Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. aren't real will be a cause for (mild) celebration, as it will show that he's got a brain and he's using it.

And if he ever doubts something that I firmly believe, I'll ask him to tell me his reasons. From there, we'll try to get to the truth of the matter, and either I'll be able to show him the error of his reasoning - or he will show me the error in mine.

Who were our cousins?

When I went to the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History, there was a display on Neanderthal Man. The display revealed that the Neanderthals not only buried their dead but even marked the graves with flowers. This is kind of a big deal because it shows that they had at least some degree of ritual to their lives, and it also indicates that they may have had a primitive sort of religion/belief in the afterlife. It's tough to say, of course, because they're not around anymore (haven't been for about 28,0000 years now) to tell us one way or the other.

What's fascinating about Neanderthals is that they're human beings but not quite human beings like us. They're different enough to be considered a different species, but they're close enough to have bred with us, as has been revealed by studying our DNA. (From what I understand, this is more likely if you're of European ancestry.)

I don't know enough about this subject to have anything profound or original to say about it, but it's a topic that fascinates me. I suppose it fills me with questions, and it gives me a more profound sense of just who I am and what it means to be a human being in the first place. Most religions teach that we were specially created by a deity. The evidence shows us that there was nothing special about our origin, but that doesn't mean there's nothing special about us now.

I have to wonder though, what if the Neanderthals or another one of our cousins from the human family tree became the dominant species on the planet? If Neanderthals had a proto-religion, would they have gone on to develop ones that are more complex like the ones that we have today? Would they create art, poetry, and music? Some of our cousins, like homo erectus, seemed to have the right equipment to allow them so speak at least. Could they have done the rest?

And if our cousins could have done all of this, would they have done it better? Thinking that evolution is about the survival of "the best" is to misunderstand it. It's about the one that's best able to survive. Art and music aren't things that we need to survive (although they help to make life worth living). What if our fellow homos could make art that would put ours to shame? And what about government? Would they have done a better job of it than we did? Would they have figured out that slavery was wrong? Would they have equality of the sexes? I'm sure somebody more studied in this could give some educated guesses, but I'm not sure if anybody can answer for sure.

These thoughts have obviously entered the head of Jeff Smith, the writer/artist best known for Bone and Rasl, as his new series, Tuki, features a homo erectus protagonist, and there's a homo habilus as one of the supporting characters. Obviously, with a work like this, there's a decent amount of conjecture going on, but Smith takes the time to explain some of the science behind the story (like why he thinks it's reasonable to have Tuki speak).  It debuted as an online comic, but the first issue has hit the stands. If you like comics and this concept intrigues you, you should check it out.

I like it because it deals with something that already interests me. When I think about our distant cousins who have long since vanished from the Earth, I have a lot of feelings going on in me at once. I feel curious to know more. I feel sad that we may never know as much as I'd like. I feel appreciative that it was my particular branch that managed to survive and bring me to this point. Overall, I have a greater sense of respect for who I am and what my place is in this world.

Guardians of the Galaxy - movie review

Even though I've been an avid comic book reader for most of my life, and I've always read at least a few titles published by Marvel, I've never really gotten into any of the "cosmic" characters like The Silver Surfer, Nova, and The Guardians of the Galaxy. I started reading the new series that's being written by Brian Michael Bendis, but I lost interest after about a dozen issues. Still, I wanted to see the movie because it looked entertaining and Marvel Studios hasn't let me down yet.

Even though I didn't have a whole lot riding on this particular movie, I did feel that the one thing they'd have to get right, or the whole thing would fall apart, is Rocket Raccoon. (And as has been noted before, it is kinda sad that he made it to the big screen before Wonder Woman.) Obviously, he's all CGI, but he's an important member of the team. Sure, Groot, the living tree, is an important member as well, but he can't hold a conversation the way Rocket can. I thought it was an interesting choice to get Bradley Cooper to do his voice, as he's not exactly an obvious pick. Had they done this movie in the 1990s, they probably would have gotten Robin Williams or Jim Carrey to do it and play it strictly for goofy laughs.

Do they get him right? Yes. They totally nailed it. Honestly, I wouldn't have guessed that it was Cooper doing the role - who knew that he had a talent for voices? And yes, he's a humorous character, but the humor comes organically out of the fact that he's basically a talking raccoon, yet he has no idea what a raccoon is. Also, most of his funny lines would have been funny if any character said it. In other words, it's not a bunch of lame raccoon puns.

Honestly, I thought that Peter Quill, also known as Starlord, was more interesting in the movie than he's ever been in the comics that I've read. He seems kind of a blank slate in those, but he's given some real heart and motivation in this movie. I can't say that there's a character in this film that doesn't work.

The special effects really show how far things have gone. Yes, it's heavy with CGI, but I found myself immersed in the world that was created. Also, it reminded me of how crappy Green Lantern was, or more specifically, the special effects from that movie. Guardians shows that you can have other worlds that aren't dark and blurry, as the main planet that they have to save is bright and vibrant. I'm not sure how much of it was models and miniatures, but I completely bought into it.

My only complaint is that it starts to fizzle at the end. I think that the best example of a movie's end fight scene being more satisfying than exhausting was in The Avengers. With this, it felt like it was going on a bit too long in an effort to end with as big of a spectacle as possible. Still, overall this was a pretty strong film, and I look forward to seeing these characters not only return in their own sequel (which has already been greenlit) but interact with the characters from the other Marvel Studios movies.

Oh, and it's killing me to not discuss the post-credits sequence. For those of you who saw it, let me just say that as far as what it introduced is concerned, I was okay with it being there. Hopefully, I think that this should not be a hint of what's to come but the end of that particular concept.