suck it, nerds

2cool4skool

YOU SHUT UP, ASHTAR.

That does sound like something that Ashtar, the Emperor of Darkness, would say.

I just hope they don't go out of their way to make it more violent, since it's Toonami and they can now.

I'd be fine with a more-violent Samurai Jack. Mr Tartakovsky was always keen to push the boundaries of what was acceptable in children's programming so far as violence was concerned, and while there's always the danger that, given free reign on the creative front, New Jack's violence might become distracting and excessive, I think Mr Tartakovsky has more than earned the benefit of the doubt. He's an excellent artist with impeccable aesthetic sensibility; assuming he's connected with this project, I don't think we'll have anything to worry about.

If he is smart about it, more violence doesn't have to be a problem, but I don't by any means look at old SJ cartoons and feel they would have been better if only there had been more gore. Jack cuts up robots which have no emotions (except for that one), so you don't have to worry about the morality of a hero using a deadly weapon.

I feel that, in general, either moral ambiguity is built into the premise of your hero or it isn't, and if it isn't then don't go there. Superman is not improved by leveling Metropolis, the Doctor is not improved by destroying Gallifrey, and Samurai Jack is not improved by being a killer whose saving grace is that he's killing Aku's troops.

I see what you did! Your comment style is from the same era as this cartoon! Clever.

There's nothing "morally ambiguous" about killing monsters, with a deadly weapon or with his fists, whether they have feelings or not. Jack is a samurai, a sheepdog and a warrior; death is his calling. He understands this, his enemies understand this, and yes, the audience understands this too. Jack, like Neo or the crew of the Serenity, fights the Demiurge to free his people, and does so without any apology.


As for Superman, we've been over this before, Mr Bort. Superman has always had a very dark side to him. He's the emblem of American authoritarianism, our Amerisoc Big Brother if you will, and if it takes Ubermensch leveling Metropolis to get you questioning his actions, then artistically speaking, leveling Metropolis was the right call!

Superman fans always seem to labor under the notion that "Superman's authoritarianism is fine, because he just punches people". That this notion continues to endure, well into the 21st century, is a testament to the psychological impact of well-crafted propaganda - fascinating yes, historically important no doubt, but it's passed time we moved on.


The Doctor destroying Gallifrey was the right call, too. It gave his character some much-needed depth and motivation, as well as explaining his quaint, curiously-British aversion to violence.

"Superman has always had a very dark side to him. He's the emblem of American authoritarianism, our Amerisoc Big Brother if you will"

Not really, he's always been how Americans like to view their country, not so much how it is.

... Not a true statement that he's "always" been that way; comics have been dicking around with the formula for ages to make him more 3dgier or more alien or more angry or whatever, because DC has had a terrible case of Marvel Envy for decades. But the formula they're always dicking around with is the guy with all the power in the world but uses it responsibly and with an eye to the good of all. We tend to see that formula at work in other media more reliably; for example, "Supergirl" is an excellent example of a Kryptonian who would prefer to talk bad guys into doing the right thing rather than just punch them into submission. (Hell, the TV show can represent Superman better in a chat window than the comics do. It's remarkable how reliably the comics get it wrong, but other media can so easily get it right.)

"The Doctor destroying Gallifrey was the right call, too. It gave his character some much-needed depth and motivation, as well as explaining his quaint, curiously-British aversion to violence."

Being the last Gallifreyan was a pretty good twist, but actually destroying Gallifrey was a little much. I'm much much happier with the retcon that Moffat later applied, that the Doctor actually saved Gallifrey but could not remember it (WWTW).

"he's always been how Americans like to view their country, not so much how it is."

Yes, precisely. he's how certain Americans, authoritarian-minded Americans, like to view their country. As I said, he's the *emblem* of American authoritarianism, embodying the hopes and dreams of the establishment, even if the perfectly-ordered, benevolently-regulated society of Superman has yet to come into being.

I believe we've discussed Superman's edginess, too. The edginess of modern Superman isn't a problem: "edgy" Superman is simply a more realistic, more nuanced Superman (thanks Marvel! You guys rock). The REALLY creepy, fascist Superman was old-school Superman - the "classic" Superman who was always right, and whose authors never stopped to question the morality of giving America an all-seeing, all-powerful secret policeman, whose sole purpose in life was to fly around the country, beating up any individuals who transgressed against the approved social order.

"a more realistic, more nuanced Superman"

I see what you're saying, but "realistic" doesn't need to mean "asshole". And -- this is an important point -- I have yet to meet anyone who likes the asshole version of Superman. Marvel fans point to him and say it's an improvement, but I bet they're not actually buying the comic.

Meanwhile, the Superman scene everybody loves best from the past 20 years is one where he gives a suicidal girl a hug and persuades her to not give up.

"beating up any individuals who transgressed against the approved social order"

Yeah, down with the corrupt government, up with mad scientists building death rays and robot armies!

DURBLE BLURBLE BLURBLE DOOPY DEEDEE LALA LA HELLO