Thoughts on “Playing Gracie Darling”

February 24, 2026

Another Paramount+ show, from Australia I believe, that again came to my attention because of the ads on PlutoTV.  And the premise sounded interesting:  a young girl disappears and a woman whose best friend was a member of that family who also disappeared when she was young wants to investigate it, with an implication that the disappearance of a young boy years before that is involved as well, with a hint of some supernatural elements to it as well.

So, well, that’s the premise.  Let me dive into the series, then, instead of going through what happens in it.  The first big issues with the series is indeed the main character, Joni.  I read an article at one point where the actress playing her talked about how she was happy that the character was comfortable with her sexuality and was a sexual person, which didn’t fill me with confidence.  For most of the series, that didn’t seem to apply to the character … until she has a sex scene, and then has another one later.  The problem is that these sex scenes have nothing to do with the rest of the plot, and even worse after the first one we get a scene where she tries to get the “Morning After” pill because she had sex without using a condom.  The only reason narratively to have a scene like that is to tell us something about the character, and it really doesn’t do that, and it also causes an issue later because her second sex scene is with a childhood friend who had a crush on her — although he got a different friend pregnant — and she is unconcerned about that after having sex with him, implying that either she used a condom which makes us wonder why she didn’t the first time, or that she’d be perfectly okay having a child with him, even though she returns to the city at the end of the series and doesn’t seem inclined to move back or bring him there. which makes her seem a bit callous, too.

But the problems with the character start earlier, as she is introduced as some kind of counsellor in some kind of correctional facility for young girls, which could have been used to explain why she was so interested in finding the missing girl without introducing her connection to her friend from long ago, or that disappearance could have been used to explain why she took that job.  Neither is really done, but in the scene that establishes this one of the girls that was released but came back is freaking out and threatening people with a pencil or something, and ultimately stabs herself in the neck, with I think should have killed her, and yet the next scene is Joni calmly returning home and talking as if nothing happened, but more importantly not giving any indication that something like that happened and was bothering her, which made her seem more than a bit callous, which carries on throughout the series.  So we have an uninteresting and unsympathetic character who is nevertheless the character we follow throughout the series.  Sure, we get some scenes with her daughter which are a bit more interesting, but those are few and far between.

So, is the mystery at least any good?  Well, the missing girl in modern times ran away from the ultimate killer, the missing girl from Joni’s childhood was killed and her body was burned but it was kinda an accident, and the boy who was killed was indeed killed.  Who the killer is fits with what we find out during the series, but isn’t inspired or a shocking twist either.  And the hints of the supernatural are just hints, but the ending of the season implies that there might be some sort of follow-up from that that allows Joni to see other ghostly characters, if at that point anyone was interesting in more adventures with her.

But that won’t be me, because I found the series boring and focusing on things that don’t add to the series in a short, six-episode season of standard-length TV episodes.  If you want a murder mystery with supernatural elements you’d be far better off watching “Pretty Little Liars” or “Twin Peaks”, which develop the characters far better and make them far more sympathetic than what we get here.  You could argue that as longer series they have more time to do that, but by the end of the pilot episode of “Pretty Little Liars” we are introduced to the mystery, find Alison’s body, are introduced to the girls and find out what their lives are like and so get an idea of who they are and why we should be sympathetic towards them.  With five more episodes, that never happens here. I’m not watching this series again, nor would I watch a second season.

Tori Vega Diary: Cotton Candy Clouds

February 23, 2026

Quesh is not a pleasant planet.  It’s a toxic swamp only good for mining adrenals and, well, trying not to breathe too deeply.  Yeah, it’s even worse than Taris, although it doesn’t have the monsters that can bite you and turn you into them.  Or, at least, I don’t think it does … and I really, really don’t want to find out.

Anyway, getting the Safecrackers out of trouble was a minor operation, which makes me wonder why they couldn’t figure it out themselves.  Helping out the planet was a bit more of an issue, and it involved dealing with that whole “adrenal production” thing.  It seems that the Imperials were attacking the workers and had caused leaks that were poisoning them, so I had to go there and seal them off and cure some of the poisoned workers.  Then I had to clear out some Imperials from a factory run by a Hutt (always with the Hutts!).  He asked me to find some special adrenals of his.  I did that, but then I told the military guys about them, which made the Hutt give them to the Republic as a “gift”, claiming that that was always his intent.  Again, there was a choice between a military objective and protecting the factories, but getting all the workers killed wouldn’t make them want to work with us, and the military is trained to, well, do military things and so again I wasn’t going to sacrifice innocents just for the military.  Maybe that makes me a bad military officer but I have to remind you that I don’t want to be one!

Anyway, after that it was time to go after the Moff who was running it and his Hutt “ally” who had holed up in the Hutt we were dealing with’s palace.  There was a choice of either sneaking in through the sewers or going in through the front door, and with Elora’s blessing I decided that we would take the front door.  The militia officer who was commanding the other group just sounded so pathetic about being sent in the front door, saying that they’d go and do it and try to have as many of them survive as they could, which is not really the attitude you want someone going into a tough battle to be saying.  Plus, I already stank enough from the swamp and didn’t need to add sewer stink to that.

Anyway, we did make it in and confronted the Hutt, and then were faced down by the Moff and his troops, but the troops had made it in to give me some backup and they weren’t much of a threat.  So I headed back to where we had been staging with the Hutt who was on our side and discovered …

… that the militia leader who was supposed to be working on our side and was so happy that I was willing to go in the front door instead of letting his squad do it had betrayed us and captured the Hutt and taken him to a Sith Lord that he was working with.  I should have let him take the front door!

Anyway, it was off to where the Sith Lord was keeping them, and he wanted us to come so that he could kill us himself, I guess.  Anyway, the militia leader said that he did it because he didn’t think he was getting promoted enough here, and so I pointed out that as an alien he wasn’t going to get very far in the Empire either, and the Sith Lord helpfully agreed with me.  But then he shot up the militia leader with some really, really strong adrenals and they attacked us, but we managed to fight them off, and then I gave the militia leader the cure because it didn’t feel right to just let him die in front of us.

Oh, the Sith Lord?  Yeah, he died.  But, like, he wasn’t writhing in pain or anything with a handy antidote nearby.  And he was a Sith Lord, for freak’s sake!

Anyway, with all of that done, it was time to head off to another of the brightest spots in the galaxy:  Hoth.  They never send me anywhere nice!

Final Thoughts on Olympic Curling

February 22, 2026

So, the Olympic curling is over, and while I had expressed that I wasn’t optimistic about Canada’s chances in the women’s team event after Homan went 1 – 3 in her first four and needed to win out to make it to the medal rounds, I noted that if any team could do that, it would be Homan.  And she almost did it, winning all of her remaining games in the round robin to make it to the medal rounds, and then dropping her semi-final game to Sweden before beating the U.S. in the bronze medal game to win the bronze.  At the same time, the men’s team did well in the round robin and carried that through to win the gold medal game against Great Britain which was in a similar situation as Homan, struggling in the round robin to start but coming on late to make it to the gold medal game.  What this also meant is that the most dominant teams over the past cycle — Homan, Tirinzoni and Mouat on the men’s side — didn’t win gold, as Hasselborg beat Tirinzoni in the gold medal game and Jacobs beat Mouat on the men’s side, which was interesting.

For me, I still felt that for the most part the games in the women’s event, at least, turned too much on too many big mistakes resulting in big ends, and more unforced errors on shots that they should have made than on forced errors by forcing them to make tough shots.  A lot of the time, the teams made the tough shots and flubbed the easy ones, and flubbed them the long way.  I only half paid attention to the women’s final, but it didn’t quite seem to be the case there, but again I wasn’t really paying attention.  As for Canada’s results, while the mixed doubles results were disappointing and garnered a reaction of “Here we go again!”, the ultimate results weren’t bad, and Canada got a medal in both of the team events, and the big thing that I, as a Canadian, was looking for was Canada getting back to being a medal contender again and making the medal rounds instead of falling short as they had before.  This, to me, bodes well going forward, although Jacobs may not be back for the next one.  Homan could be, and getting the Olympic monkey off of her back — especially given her start — will take some pressure off of her if she makes it back for the next one and will also make her better able to handle that sort of pressure.

There’s still a bit of curling left this season, but most people will consider this the highlight of the curling year.

“Can Kang Kill His Past Self? The Paradox of Time Travel”

February 20, 2026

The next essay in “The Avengers and Philosophy” is “Can Kang Kill His Past Self?  The Paradox of Time Travel” by Andrew Zimmerman Jones.  This essay uses the time travel hijinks of Kang and Immortus to argue that time travel, at the very least, always risks paradoxes, with a detour through Einstein’s relativity messing around with time.  But the problem with the essay is that for the most part it seems to assume that the paradoxes are more or less inevitable and focuses more on modern scientific notions of time travel, while discussing ways that the natural world could keep history the same so that we would avoid these paradoxes.  So let me focus more on the idea of time paradoxes than on the essay itself.

The big issue that creates time paradoxes, it seems to me, is the idea that if we only have one universe to play with someone who goes back in time to fix something would have to alter the timeline so that that event never happened, and so they’d have no reason to build a time machine to go back in time to fix that event.  So even if we wanted to create a stable time loop — bad event happens, person goes back to fix it, person is returned to a world where the event didn’t happen — we couldn’t have a stable time loop because that world would have had no reason to go back and fix the event and so doing that couldn’t be part of the “new” world, and thus no loop.  This would contrast to things like “I’m my own grandpa” which leads to a predestination paradox where someone who goes back in time — presumably, to do something else — ends up doing something that leads to an event that the person later realizes was always the case, such as them going back in time and having a relationship with their own grandmother and so, indeed, becoming their own grandpa.  The issue with this one is only how it could have happened the first time, not how it would be maintained as being stable afterwards.

So, can we make such things work?  In some sense, I think we can, but it needs to be a somewhat unstable loop, not a stable loop in both cases.  There is at least potentially an example of this in “Babylon 5”, with Jeffrey Sinclair going back in time to become Valen.  In order for this to work, all we need are for certain initial conditions to hold:  the Shadows would win the war if Babylon 4 was not taken back in time, giving the Vorlons a reason to send it back in time, due to the Minbari War the humans would want to build the Babylon stations, the previous three would have to be failures, the humans would have to be encouraged to build 4 and 5 anyway, and Jeffrey Sinclair would have to have roughly the same background and upbringing so that his nature would produce the Minbari culture required to participate in these events the way they did.  My theory on this was that this sort of time travel was something that the Vorlons could do but that the Shadows couldn’t, because the Vorlons were all about order and so would be willing to keep those sorts of things static so that the time loop could happen more or less the way it did.  But the key here is that it doesn’t have to happen exactly the way it happened the first time, and of course the main purpose of doing so would be to make the Shadows weaker after the war so that events after the original point of time travel would be different.  So the Shadows would be weaker, but the other conditions would stay the same … including a message saying that they really had to go back in time to prevent that sort of thing from happening.  This would be in some sense a stable loop, in that it would produce a world where Sinclair always goes back in time, but in some sense the world could end up constantly changing due to the small differences in how things worked out.  But there would be no paradox there if we accept that time travel could change things.

We can all see, however, that if what we have are an infinite number — or potentially infinite number — of possible worlds, and that time travel creates or shifts someone to one of those worlds, then we would also avoid the potential for time travel paradoxes or any kind.  The world where the bad event happened causes the desire to change that event and so to build the time machine and go back in time, but once the event is prevented the person “returns” to a new and different world where that event never happened and so has no need to go back in time … but then that world was either created “naturally” or because of time travel from another world.  “Stein’s Gate” does both the “we have to ensure that things stay the same so that the reason to go back in time is preserved” and the idea of different worlds, as Okabe is indeed actually moving to different timelines, but to get to the proper timeline where he saves the girl he needs to ensure that his original self still sees her die so that the previous events all happen.  As I noted in my review of the anime, this raises the interesting idea that for everyone else except the person who shifts timelines nothing changes.  They still die or have to suffer in that bad world.  Only the shifter gets to escape it by jumping to a world where it never happened.  Unless someone is completely selfish, this is a paradox-free solution that, nevertheless, isn’t all that pleasant of one.  (The same situation applies to “Happy Death Day 2 U”, as that involves a parallel world and we have to wonder what happens to the Tree that the Tree from the main world at least would have potentially displaced.)

So some sorts of time travel seem to not risk time travel paradoxes, if one is exceedingly careful to keep things similar enough so that there are at least no noticeable paradoxes, or if time travel always involves shifting to or creating alternate worlds and thus with two different worlds we don’t have two things happening that are contradictory and so no paradox.  This is probably enough to generate interesting time travel stories for many years to come.

Thoughts on “Coming Home in the Dark”

February 19, 2026

Working my way through the “Cs”, I come to “Coming Home in the Dark”.  Again, I had a brief look at the description and noticed this (in the mouse-over):

Ruthless drifters take a family on a nightmare road-trip.

This gave me a little pause, because while on occasion I like those sorts of movies there are a lot of ways those sorts of movies can go wrong and be uninteresting.  But I don’t filter out thrillers and that’s what this would be, so I decided to sit down and watch it.

The plot here is that a man, his wife, and I think twin sons are taking a road trip and stop to camp somewhere.  A couple of drifters wander over and make like they are trying to steal from them, but ultimately stick around too long, and then kill the kids, knock out the wife, hurt the man’s shoulder, and then bundle the two of them in their car and drive them around for a while.  Ultimately, it is revealed that the man is a teacher who used to work at some kind of school for delinquents or something where there were abuses, and ultimately has to reveal that he watched some of the abuses and didn’t say anything, which somewhat disturbs his wife who believed that he wasn’t involved at all.  They still drive around a bit sometimes killing people that the man tries to inform — like the owner of a convenience store — and then the wife dives onto the road and then gets cornered on a bridge where she throws herself off, presumably to her death — and it seems like that might have been the intent all along — and they eventually return to the school where it is revealed that the drifter who hadn’t said much and didn’t want to go into the school was the one who had been abused, not the mouthy one with the gun, and the mouthy one tries to kill the man, but the other drifter comes in, takes the gun away from the injured one — the man beat him in a rage at one point — and then kills the mouthy drifter instead of the man and walks away.

Like with “Spread” — I am getting so much use out of that post — this is not a new concept and yet inexplicably the movie fails to properly implement it.  In order for this ending to hit home, we would need much more development of that relationship, with the silent drifter being the one who was abused and broken by that and the mouthy drifter being driven by that abuse to try to avenge it.  So we would need to reveal that silent drifter was the victim a lot earlier than we had here.  And the explanation for why the silent drifter goes along with it needed to be something like was hinted at a couple of times, that they felt like monsters because of what was done to them and what they felt because of that and how they fell into being drifters because the abuse made them incapable of living a normal life, and at the end the silent drifter would have realized that it was the place that did that, not himself or the teacher, and realized that while he wasn’t a monster, the mouthy one was a monster, and that there was a difference between them in that way, which then causes him to stop the revenge instead of participating in it.  But that wasn’t done at all.

Alternatively, they could have had the mouthy one live or be killed by the man — or even kill the man — and use it as an exploration of abuse and the responsibility that people who simply stand by have in those cases.  But in order to do that, they would have had to explore that more in the conversations, and they didn’t.  In fact, they didn’t explore anything in the long conversations that make up most of the movie.  The mouthy one talks a lot, but doesn’t say anything, nor is there a good banter between the two of them that philosophically examine the issues or ends up as a dance between the mouthy one wanting to make the man see his responsibility while the man keeps rationalizing it a way with practiced rationalizations that he is desperately trying to maintain in the face of the facts that he is trying to deny.  Add in that the mouthy one is often mumbly and the conversations are boring and don’t go anywhere.  It could work as a simple expression of how horrific that abuse was, but the mouthy one kills too many innocent people for that to work since he’d have to be sympathetic, and he isn’t.  He’s a horrific brute, the silent one gets no development, and the man doesn’t really seem to learn anything that he probably didn’t already know and the revelation of that to him doesn’t seem to break him as much as it should.

And on top of all of that, the whole “family” part is utterly irrelevant.  The sons are killed off early in the movie in a rather perfunctory fashion and other than that being a motivation for the wife to commit suicide it really doesn’t have any impact on the movie at all, and especially not on the main conflict between the man and the mouthy one.  His being willing to simply kill them could have been used as a sign of his hypocrisy as he seemed to want the children protected, but it’s not used that way.  And the wife herself is mostly extraneous.  There’s a small element that the mouthy one wants her to understand who her husband really is, but that’s not really developed and only plays into a couple of small scenes.   You could take the wife and kids out of the picture entirely and the movie might have been better for it, as it would have given the man a reason to try to stay alive and allowed the movie to focus on the conversational conflict between the man and the mouthy one over what was done to the silent one under the man’s watch.

But then you’d have to make the conversations interesting, and this movie in its writing and performances utterly fails to do that.  That makes the entire movie incredibly boring, and a far cry from better thrillers of the sort where that conflict and cat and mouse game in conversation and in the moves that are made by the protagonist to try to escape and the antagonist to keep them captured or recapture them make for wonderful suspense.  Thus, this movie slows the action down enough to work as a thriller, but forgets that it takes more than simply having a slow pace that makes for a great thriller.  You need to fill the time with interesting and suspenseful content, and this movies completely fails to deliver on that.  I will not watch this movie again.

Further Thoughts on “Suikoden II”

February 18, 2026

So I’ve had a bit more time to play “Suikoden II” and have pretty much gotten what should be most of the way through, so it’s time for some further thoughts on the game.

The plot is deeper and more complex than in “Suikoden”, but it does suffer from the same pacing issues as that game, as the plot moves rather quickly, with big events being highlighted and then being resolved in the next section which means that it gets resolved in about an hour or so of playtime — my regular time to play the game — and then we move on to other things.  The worst for me was a pair of battles where a point that was admittedly brought up before — the kobolds not trusting humans — because used to have their squads abandon the fight only to pop up in the next fight to turn the tide, and then using that and the fact that the main villain had poisoned his father for not adequately defending his mother to turn the main enemy generals in that fight.  The abandonment and return was very quick, and I barely knew who the generals were — other than remembering one of the names from “Suikoden III” — and had no idea about those family issues for the villain which seemingly justify his move towards purification or whatever.

But the plot is more personal, as the best friend from the beginning who took on the second True Rune ended up staying behind and joined up with the enemy, but he clearly has a plan of his own, and we have some confrontations that are ultimately leading to what will be the endgame, although given that this is a Suikoden game if I don’t get all of the 108 Stars of Destiny — and I almost certainly won’t — someone is not going to survive that, and it’s likely going to be the friend.  This also gave some interesting moments with the child of the family that saved him who was attached to him, with them waiting for him to return at one point and then with his obvious betrayal, but after that she’s around but because she doesn’t talk doesn’t really get to do much, at least not yet.  But, yeah, this gives more emotional moments than the previous game did.

There’s more to this game, like a detective who can tell you how to recruit people and can research the secrets of people, and trading posts which you can use — if you pay attention to prices and rumours — to make more money as you run around the various places.  But I find that like with the first game I’m not really all that interested in doing so.  Sure, I spent some time running around trying to recruit characters, but ultimately the constant random battles that can’t hurt me but that give me money that is useful for weapon upgrades and bribing random encounters to leave me alone makes me tired of doing that, especially since for some of the characters even after the detective gives his hint I can’t figure out how to recruit them and lost patience with trying.  I also found that the random encounters were annoying not because they were difficult — with the runes I’m using any one group is not at all a threat to me — but because they drained resources — like rune magic charges — that I would need to battle the inevitable boss of the dungeon or section.  So this game is more something where you worry about not having enough resources to fight the boss after being ground down by the random encounters than being overly worried about any one encounter, although I lost one fight once until I learned to use the magic protection spell.

I decided to kit out all my characters with multiple runes, and was feeling proud of myself until I realized that your number of spells is determined across all your runes and so you don’t get a number of spells per rune.  Which means that if I equipped, say, a Fire and Water rune, and used my level 3 Fire spell, then I didn’t get to use my level 3 Water spell, which means that equipping multiple runes worked well for flexibility but not so well for ensuring that everyone had something to do and could mix their roles.  But it still worked well enough on Easy, but I guess if I had been playing it for real I’d have to do things like pay attention to armour and levels and the like, which so far I haven’t had to do.

Ultimately, like I said, I like the story better in this game than in the first, and find the two games to be, for the most part, pretty adequate.  But this game still makes me want to play “Suikoden III” more.

Thoughts on “Twisted Metal”

February 17, 2026

So, my goal starting into the New Year is to clear out a lot of the short series that are on places like Tubi as well as on the pay streaming services of Paramount+ and Disney+ to get through them and take a break from the longer series like “Once Upon a Time”.  So I started with “Twisted Metal” from Paramount+.  Since I have PlutoTV, this one came to my attention through the many many ads for it, and two things in the ad made me put it on my list to watch.  First, I vaguely remembered hearing about the game at some point and so the name was family.  And second, one of the jokes in ad was really funny.  More on that later.

But the basic idea of the game was always some sort of major vehicular combat tournament in what I guess was some kind of post-apocalyptic world.  The series starts with the post-apocalyptic world and some vehicular combat, but leaves the tournament to the second season.  In the first season, we meet John Doe, a “milkman” whose job it is to make deliveries across the devastated world.  He’s called John Doe because he lost his memory in a car accident during the event that caused the devastation and can’t even remember his family, and only has a picture of them.  He gets called into talk to Raven — played by Neve Campbell in the first season — in one of the main city-states that is walled off from the more dangerous areas who makes him a deal to make a delivery run to Chicago and if he gets back in time he’ll get to live inside the city.  As he sets out, he eventually encounters Quiet, a woman whose brother was killed by a dictatorial head of a police-themed faction that is trying to impose order on the chaotic exterior, and after she keeps trying to steal his car but they keep getting attacked by various denizens of the outside world they end up working together to make the delivery and get revenge on the police officer guy.  After a number of travails, he loses his first beloved car and they end up building “Roadkill”, which I guess is the name of the car from the game, to complete the delivery.  At that point, Raven surprisingly keeps her end of the deal … but refuses to let Quiet in, who shoots John — non-fatally — to get him to take his reward.  But Raven ultimately points out to him that the delivery run was a test, and she ultimately wants him to participate in the tournament where the winner gets their greatest wish granted, and offers him information on his family as a reward for doing that.  The second season is the tournament, but Raven has been swapped out with another Raven, who is less charismatic and more blunt than Neve Campbell’s Raven — who is implied to still be around as the rulers are a bunch of Ravens — and wants to win the tournament to get her lover who was injured in the devastation and is on life support.  John wants to escape, at least in part to reunite with Quiet, while she joins up with a female-led group that happens to contain his sister.  They then join up to enter the tournament to demand as their wish the destruction of the cities, but when John’s sister is killed he wants to change his wish to resurrecting her, while another young girl named Mayhem attaches herself a bit to Quiet to provide Quiet with someone to mentor, and Mayhem eventually takes over a guy’s AI-driven car but does get defeated — by Raven, who enters herself after John escapes — although Quiet was torn about Mayhem actually being her target.  The winner of the tournament is a goofball who has been around for most of the series, and ends up finding out that the wishes always have an edge.  At the end, the guy who runs the tournament framed John et all for a bomb at the stadium during the tournament, the goofball returns, and they discover that the guy who runs the tournament has revived John’s sister as a killing machine, which seemingly will lead us in to season 3.

So, let’s return to the joke that got me into the series, and the problem with trailers.  The joke was that Neve Campbell’s Raven says she can make his every wish comes true and asks him what he wishes for, and in the trailer he answers “Toilet paper.  Two-ply.”  She then replies that she can do better, and he replied “Three-ply?!?”.  Now, of course, in the trailer we can easily understand that he probably doesn’t get access to that sort of thing very often, but in the trailer it comes across more as snarky than as a real wish.  In the series, he gives a list of other things before saying that, and later when he ends up at her house he does seem quite impressed with the toilet paper.  But where the joke fails in the series is that it is indeed less him being snarky and more him taking it seriously.  Even the “Three-ply?!?” comment doesn’t really hit as him hilariously missing the point, but not as him snarking at her either.  It also makes the discussion seem pointless because soon after she reveals that what she was really offering him was the ability to live in the city, and in fact for her plan to work it seems like she’d have to make him that offer, so she could have skipped the line entirely and just taken him on the tour.

This carries over to the end of the season, where she refuses to allow Quiet into the city.  There was no reason for her to do that as one more person in the city wouldn’t have caused issues, and all it did was cause John to want to escape the city.  And since Quiet had had to help him make the delivery, and since there are no rules in the tournament about having two people in the car — and there couldn’t be for other plots to work — there was no reason for her not to keep them together and send the team out into the tournament.  And so the only reason to do that was to give him a reason to want to leave the city.  And then the entire first season is made moot by the new Raven entering with her own car and doing well.  And on that note, that Raven comments that everyone liked the previous Raven better, but that’s because this Raven is a brute and a psychopath and Neve Campbell’s Raven was more of a manipulator, which was more interesting and, indeed, was a Raven who wouldn’t have been able to enter the tournament on her own, and the motive for entering is new Raven’s, not Neve Campbell Raven’s.  If this was portrayed as a difference of opinion on what the right way to win the tournament was from the beginning, that would have worked, but it wasn’t, and so there is really no reason to a) not let Quiet into the city at the end of the first season and b) to even try to recruit John Doe, so once we get to the tournament it doesn’t work.

The first season also doesn’t work so well because for people who have had to learn how to survive in the chaotic exterior world John and Quiet are idiots.  The issues they encounter in making the delivery most of the time are the result of their own idiocy combined with contrivance, like his car getting stolen in the few minutes he takes to take a leak — despite his seemingly being smart enough to not do that when he could hear other cars or people around — or the worst case where Quiet loses his picture and they stop in a field to look for it and some gang members show up out of nowhere to steal the car — which ultimately ends up getting it destroyed — despite it being, well, an open field where, even with them being distracted, they likely would have seen them coming long before they got there.  This set of contrivances hurts the first season because, as already noted, it makes them look like idiots.  They really needed more competent or dangerous enemies to make the world seem dangerous, and you could do that while keeping the veneer of humour that the series maintains.

Part of that is probably the existence and prominence of Stu — the goofball — and his friend, along with the clown character of Sweet Tooth, who drives an ice cream truck and is a performative psychopath, in that he likes to perform and is a psychopath.  A lot of the series focuses on them, but they are not exactly interesting characters.  Sweet Tooth works as a quirky dangerous character in the world, but for the most part that sort of character works when he comes across the path of the heroes, but he gets a lot of scenes entirely on his own.  I seem to recall that he was a character — and likely a popular one — from the game, which might explain his prominence, but they had to imagine that given the age of the game — John at one point practices on what looks like a PS1 version of the game — that a lot of people coming to the series were like me:  people who had heard of the game but hadn’t really played it.  And thus we would vaguely recognize the character but wouldn’t have the emotional connection to the character that would justify all the scenes with him, and he’s not interesting enough for that much focus.  It only gets worse when he teams up with Stu, who along with his friend worked as hapless characters whose paths keep crossing with the main characters but worked poorly with being attached to Sweet Tooth, and even his winning the tournament could have worked if he was more out of focus and so came out of nowhere, but that’s not what happened.

The first season, aside from the competence problems and the focus on characters that are not the purported main ones worked okay but wasn’t great.  The second season started off worse with the introduction of the less interesting Raven, the contrivance of meeting his sister, and the introduction of Mayhem who was just really, really annoying as a braggart with no skills — despite having lived to at least close to adulthood in this chaotic world — who nevertheless Quiet takes a shine to.  However, the later parts of the tournament are interesting, with the prom scene and the clash over wishes, and Mayhem gets better and gains some skills — although her biggest wins are her just letting the car do the driving and doing nothing — and so even comes across as sympathetic when she gets injured.  But the ending isn’t all that great, either.

So, seemingly there are possible plans for a third season, so I can alter my normal question a bit:  if season 3 drops, would I watch that season and as part of that rewatch the first two season?  I don’t think so.  The series wasn’t terrible, but was neither funny nor serious enough to really work for me, and the first season has a dearth of car combat while the second season has more but less interesting drama, although the last part of the season was more interesting.  So I think I will just leave this one.

Tori Vega Diary: Only a Stranger

February 16, 2026

So the first place I was sent to was Balmorra, where our new demolitions experts was supposed to be.  He’d been kicked out of the army at some point and now we needed to recruit him for the most elite commando group in the Republic.  This … didn’t seem like a good idea.  First, someone who had been kicked out of the army seemed like someone with at least some impulse control problems, and not in a mostly harmless way.  Although I guess I’d be trying for that if I figured I’d just be kicked out instead of being sent to prison for it.  And second, someone who had been kicked out of the army probably wasn’t going to be too happy about that, and so not at all anxious to return.  Again, if it was me I’d be saying “Thanks, but no thanks!” and running away as fast as I could!  So this doesn’t seem promising.

The planet he was on wasn’t much more promising either.  It used to be a member of the Republic, and then the Empire attacked it and the Republic, well, kinda abandoned them.  That left them pretty bitter at the Republic, even though they were rebelling against the Empire and probably could have used our help.  In general, our job here was to help them rebel against the Empire despite the fact that, well, they didn’t want our help against the Empire because they figured we’d just abandon them again.  Why’d they have to make things so complicated?

Anyway, it turns out that Tanno Vik — the guy I was supposed to recruit — was claiming that he was on some kind of “mission”, and he kept stringing me along getting me to do stuff to help with the mission without telling me what it was.  I tell ya, if I hadn’t been told I needed the guy I would have given up on him and left.  But eventually, it was all revealed:  he was trying to steal some guns that he wanted to sell.  After all of my help and after he agreed to join, he then offered to cut me in on the profits.  I told him “No!” because I didn’t want to get involved in anything shady — I mean, the reason I didn’t just bail on everything here was because I didn’t want to go to prison — but he kept insisting and got offended when I didn’t want to join in.  Like, take a hint, will ya?

As for the planet, the big issue was that the Empire had gotten ahold of some kind of big weapon called “The Barrager” that could destroy entire fleets!  That sounded like a really, really bad thing for the Empire to have, so I agreed to go out and stop it.  I had to recruit some slicer who worked for the Hawkeye techs, but then when they discovered that I had freed him the Empire decided to kill the rest of them, and so I had to go and stop them.  And then I had to break into the biggest Imperial prison on the planet to free the people who designed it.  Like, I’m trying to stay out of prison!  They had some kind of spike that could stop the Barrager, but it was a one-use only and I had to use it to save some civilians that were going to be under threat from what I did.  The general in charge of things wasn’t happy about my doing that, but again I’m not letting innocents get killed because of what I’m doing!  At any rate, eventually we got to the Barrager and the scientists had come up with another spike, and so I made it in and used that spike to disable it.  The general wanted me to take control of it instead, but it turns out that in order to destroy a fleet the Barrager needed to use all the energy of a planet, and since it was fixed on Balmorra … yeah, not a good idea, and not something that would make the Balmorrans like us more.

Anyway, the general wasn’t happy with what I did, but did kinda admit that maybe the war stuff was corrupting his judgement a bit.  And then it was off to Quesh, because while I was recruiting my team member without a problem one of the teams needed for the mission was having problems, and of course I was the one sent to deal with it.

Lots of Fun in Olympic Curling

February 14, 2026

So, the last time I talked about the Olympic curling, I was cautiously optimistic about Rachel Homan’s chances as she had won her first game going away after it being close and her getting one big end.  And then she dropped the next two games, against the U.S. and Great Britain, both of them by one point, although the U.S. game was close while the Great Britain game looked closer than it was because she was down by 3 going into the final end and so the Great Britain team was basically willing to give her up to two points if they weren’t going to give her any more than that, and so she got the two points but was in tough to tie or win the game in that last end.  That set up a big game against the other dominant team in Switzerland for this afternoon.

But before I talk about that, it turns out that there was some controversy on the men’s side, as Canada played Sweden and the Swedish third complained that they were “burning” rocks by touching them at or around the hog line.  So I’ve seen lots of tweets and the like talking about not releasing the rock before the hog line, which puzzled me, because the Swedish third would have had no reason to complain about that since that is covered by lights on the rock and so if the rocks weren’t showing red, it was good.  So after listening to the commentators on the Canadian broadcasts and reading around a bit it was clear that the issue was that they felt that Marc Kennedy was touching the stone itself — the “granite”, as they put it — which no matter where it happens burns the rock and should cause it to be removed from play.  From what I heard, the Swedish team complained to the umpires about it and they put an umpire in place on the hog line to watch for three ends, seeing nothing, and so they let it go, but then at the end the Swedish third snarked at Kennedy over it and things blew up, including lots and lots of expletives.

Now, in my view accusations of Kennedy “cheating” are a bit overblown, and I think it was more frustration that caused that to happen than any real accusation.  The reason is that in curling there tends to be an at least unwritten rule that if that kind of thing doesn’t really impact play accidents happen and it should be let go.  During Rachel Homan’s first run, there was a similar situation and she had the option of removing the rock entirely, letting it go, or placing it where she thought it should have gone if there hadn’t been any interference.  She chose to remove it entirely, which upset her opponents, and she was rightly called out on that for being unsportsmanlike, even by me, although I didn’t see it as cheating but more as a reaction to the frustration of the previous games and even that one not going that well for her, and so finally thinking that she got a break.  I see the Swedish reaction more as that as well, since it is not credible to believe that a minor touch with a finger after releasing the handle would in any way, say, correct a shot and put it on the right path and would be more likely to, if anything, make things worse.  So even if he had done it a couple of times during the game, it wouldn’t have had an impact on it, and should have been let go or, if anything, a comment could have been made that he tends to do that and might want to clean that up, which is not what the Swedish third did as, again, he snarked at Kennedy about it and they were rather stroppy with the officials when they asked about it the first time (demanding answers and phrasing it in an aggressive tone as them wanting to know what the rules are instead of simply saying that they saw him doing it and wanted a line umpire to watch for it).

But then I didn’t care that much for Kennedy’s response, mostly in the mix zone, I think, where they are interviewed by the various TV networks and the like, as he started off well by saying that he respected the third but then added in more swearing as he insisted that the claims that he was doing it were completely false and, then, basically saying what I said above in a less polite way and implying that it was just that they weren’t doing well and so that was causing them to say what they said.  can say that because I’m just a random schlub on the Internet, but right there, right beside him, with emotions still being a bit raw speculating on your opponents’ motives is not a good thing to do.  And, oh yeah, it led to another confrontation in the mix zone.  Kennedy did apologize later on but it was not a good look, and the entire incident was not a good look for curling.

Which, then, ties back to Homan’s game against Switzerland.  See, after that brouhaha, the curling officials decided to have line judges on all games for the entire game.  And in the first end … Homan got called for touching the “granite” on her first shot, which she adamantly denied.  But in that case it’s all the judgement of the umpire and nothing can be done, but she did manage to get 1 in her end, and then stole 1 and then stole 2 in the next end to go up 4 – 0 and was praised by the commentators for her resilience and not falling apart after that ruling.  Which, since the last time she went to the Olympics in four person it seemed to me that it was collapsing emotionally when facing adversity was a good sign.  And Tirinzoni of Switzerland was struggling — hence the three points of steals — so it looked good for Homan.  And then she ended up giving 4 in the seventh end and ended up losing in 10 ends, although to their credit the team hung in to the end, but Switzerland did just enough to win.  Oh, and in the mix zone she didn’t react all that well either, as she basically said that it was completely false and implied that the official simply tried to find something to call, instead of saying that it was a judgement call and a missed call but that she just had to play through it.  You really, really don’t want to imply in any way that the official was looking for something to call or did so invalidly.  It’s one thing to say an official made a mistake, and quite another to imply that they were looking for something to call on you or that the officials shouldn’t be involved at all when that’s a perfectly valid role for an umpire in curling.  Although I again attribute that to frustration over how the game and the games have gone.

So, Homan needs to win out to make the medal round.  I am no longer at all optimistic, although if anyone is capable of it she is.  The men’s team is in a much better position, but let’s see if they manage to hang on or if they go the way of the mixed doubles team with a strong start and then a collapse at the end, as they just lost their first game (although it was a close game to a team that is doing really well this time around).

“Love, Friendship, and Being Spider-Man”

February 13, 2026

The next essay in “Spider-Man and Philosophy” is “Love, Friendship, and Being Spider-Man” by Tony Spanakos.  This essay examines the notions of love and friendship given Spider-Man’s nature and obligations referencing his potential love for M.J. and his potential friendship with Harry Osborn.

He starts from Aristotle, and notes that Spider-Man, as a friend, is in general superior to Harry Osborn, and references Aristotle to not that in cases where one is superior to the other the one who is superior is owed more love than the one who is superior owes to the one who is inferior.  So we might think that it is Spider-Man’s powers that make him superior, and so of Harry doesn’t want to or is unable to give Spider-Man that greater love, then perhaps attempting to gain power to be Spider-Man’s equal will allow him to bridge that gap.  But for Aristotle and Spanakos, the superiority is not in powers, but is instead in virtue, and so Harry’s attempting to gain power in order to be equal — or even arguably superior — to Spider-Man to get love only further proves his inferiority in virtue.  The key, perhaps, is that Harry trying to achieve the things that he lacks that Spider-Man has to balance the scales would follow from a sort of jealousy.  If Harry becoming the Green Goblin could give him those powers, he still would have been doing that out of jealousy and not for properly virtuous reasons.  And if he couldn’t achieve that power, then that by necessity would create a gap between them because Harry would still feel jealous of that difference and would have no way to achieve it.

A difference in virtue, however, is different.  If Harry recognizes that Spider-Man’s superiority is in virtue and understands — as anyone following Aristotle or the Stoics must — that striving for virtue is everyone’s highest goal, then his feelings are not of jealousy, but of admiration.  This is what we feel when we admire a co-worker for their dedication and diligence, or the person who gets up early every morning to walk or jog, or for people who put themselves in harm’s way to protect others.  We admire their virtue and often wish that we could have that virtue ourselves, but not in a way where we wish for what they have that we currently don’t, but instead in a way where we notice a lack in ourselves that we want to remedy, not to be equal to that person, but just to be a better or proper person ourselves.  And, in general, for Aristotle and the Stoics improvements in virtue, at least, are within our power, and so that person can use the more virtuous person as an example to follow to better themselves.  And, on the other side, the more virtuous person ought not lord their greater virtue over them, not only because that wouldn’t be particularly virtuous and so would weaken their own case, but also because they should recognize that ability to improve and thus want to help them do so.  And so a friendship where there is unequal virtue should, it seems to me, be based on admiration from the side of the person with less virtue and benevolence from the side of the person with more virtue, who recognizes that the other recognizes what virtue is and is striving to achieve it, with the more virtuous person desiring nothing more with respect to that than to make the two of them equal in virtue.  So perhaps the idea that the more virtuous person deserves more love isn’t appropriate, although admiration still fits.  But then all of those who are less virtuous should admire the virtuous more, friends or no.  So we can challenge Aristotle’s move here, I think.

But then this brings us to another idea brought up in the essay, which is the Christian concept of agape, which argues that those of greater virtue do not deserve more love or regard from those below them, but instead are required to sacrifice of themselves for the sake of others.  Clearly, Spider-Man believes that his greater powers obligate him to sacrifice himself for others.  But I think the above analysis applies here as well.  The reason Spider-Man must sacrifice himself and his interests for others is not because of his greater powers, but because of his greater virtue.  That he has greater powers allows him to do more for others, and at times it demands that he do more for others because he can actually do it and they can’t.  But it is the fact that he is a virtuous person that pushes him to make those sacrifices, but it is clear that he only needs sacrifice as much as virtue demands.  So he is not sacrificing more than others, because all must sacrifice according to their abilities and the demands of virtue.  Any moral system — Virtue Theories included — can only demand that we do that which we can in fact reasonably do, and Spider-Man’s greater powers allows him to reasonably do more than others, but he is still only obligated to do that which virtue demands.  And the same reasoning can be applied to the Christian example that spawned the term.  Jesus was not obligated to sacrifice Himself for us because He was Divine and the Divine have more stringent demands on them than those who are not Divine, but was obligated to sacrifice Himself for us because He was the only one who could.  So, again, the purported inequities between us don’t really apply here either.

So, then, what about M.J.?  The argument is that for true philia the people have to see each other as “other selves”, which seems to be akin to the idea of a “soulmate”, where the other person is seen as a soul that is compatible and complementary to the soul you have.  Spanakos argues that Spider-Man can’t be seeing M.J. as another self if he won’t reveal his secret to her, but this seems to be based on an assessment that he doesn’t do that because he can’t trust her with the secret.  But in most works Spider-Man doesn’t want to reveal it not because he doesn’t trust them to keep it — and doing that would indeed be him rejecting them as sufficiently virtuous, even if such revelations would be unintentional — but because he fears that them knowing about it will put them in danger.  Yes, that’s the fear that someone will find out, but not necessarily from them, and is instead more the idea that having someone that close to him will immediately put them in danger if his carefully guarded secret that at times has almost been revealed is actually revealed.  So perhaps we can say that he doesn’t want a true love like that because of the potential danger.  That he did ultimately reveals his secret identity to M.J. thus reveals his openness to actually having true love in his life.

As for M.J., the argument is that while she had a crush on Spider-Man that wasn’t real love either, and was instead selfish as all she had was a fantasy based on her own selfish desires for escapism and perhaps rescue.  That her crush is a fantasy and so not real makes sense, but it does seem like it could be admiration for what she sees as the idealized, virtuous qualities of Spider-Man that the people around her like Flash Thompson and Harry Osborn don’t have.  Being attracted to Spider-Man’s virtue would be a good thing, but the fact that she does not have the full picture means that she is trying to love a fantasy, not the real person.  Again, once M.J. learns that Peter and Spider-Man are the same person and finally understands the full nature of Spider-Man’s life then a true love can be formed.

So I think the key to all of these cases is the appeal to virtue, not to inequality or other properties.  Ultimately, virtue and our love of it determines how friendships and loves should go, and once we accept that inequities and fears should be manageable as a subset of the demands that virtue makes on us.


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started