One More Grayson

 I've been reading the new storyline in "Nightwing", which features the dude in a somewhat amnesiac state after he got shot in the head by an assassin. Now he's got no aspirations to exemplary heroism. He's just wandering about, hanging around in bars, and living a bit of that low life. His new attitude, combined with the fresh haircut, goes a way to reminding me of the first version of Dick Grayson that made a significant impression on me. That would be Chris O'Donnell's version from the 90s movies.

Later, I'd learn that that portrayal owed a fair bit to Jason Todd, who's probably my favourite of Batman's partners for various reasons, but amnesiac Dick, now called Ric, evokes that recollection well for me.

Especially after the Luddite Dick from that recent story about the dangers of technology. That felt odd.

Anyway. I'm here for it. Now they've just got to give him that earring.

Bonus Question!

Amnesiac Ric Grayson versus New Mutant Rictor! Battle of the young extreme Rics!

Grayson's still probably the better fighter. And now he's probably even less averse to dirty tricksiness.

Incel in a Cell

Is "Gotham" back yet?

It's weird. With his insecurity and stubborn, nonsensical feeling that he's deserving of love from the object of his desire, the show's version of Riddler seems like the type of guy who's right on the verge of trying to become a pickup artist, and the comic incarnation of the character already looks like one. It's far too easy to imagine him saying things like "Let me be the answer to the riddle that is you."

Bonus Question!

Thing that isn't quite a coincidence but should be?

In the 90s, Marlon Wayans was supposed to play Robin. In the following decade, Grant Morrison created a new Robin for the comics named Damian Wayne. Today I wondered if that was supposed to reference Damon Wayans because it feels like the sort of thing Grant would do if Damon had been the Wayans to play Robin. But then I realised that Marlon was the one. So whatever. At least I don't have to be curious about it now.

Timeless Knights

I went to see "Transformers" over its second weekend. I usually don't do such things so soon after release. For one thing, I've  no rush. There's generally a backlog. Additionally, the extra space after the end of the early rush is nice. But that wasn't even close to being an issue despite the movie's recency. In fairness, I went on  a Sunday evening, but the Monday was a holiday. Two dudes did come in around the last 20 minutes and sit in front of me, but it was still pretty sparse. One of them was gone for a fair half of that remaining time, and the other was talking on his phone for most of his companion's absence. No worries. I was using mine to read. Etiquette's only a thing when other people actually care.

Again I was surprised by a blockbuster's setting.

I thought that this was supposed to be a time travel thing? Oh, well. I probably missed some Arthurian opening by dint of my customary tardiness, but I liked what I saw of the robots' fight against the Nazis. As consoloation prized go, Autobot antics in the Second World War seem splendid. The other surprise? Apart from Tony Hopkins? The credits. Man! For a dude who inadvertently blows up computers in the process of rendering special effects, Michael Bay's crew seemed light. So short!

Bonus Question!

How's the Dark Knight doing? 

While I was reading the latest "Batman" issue, I'd forgotten that the entire arc was a flashback to the earlier days of the titular hero's tenure in Gotham. There was a heavy scene near the end wherein the sole surviving member of a mobster's staff looked like Penguin. The resemblance seemed too close to be practical in a book about Batman, but he was just hanging in the background. I shrugged and moved on. Then the killer addresses him directly and draws him into the plot. I thought, "What? They're not even going to reference the fact that this imminently important character has the total demeanor and silhouette of Oswald Cobblepot? He's just standing there, and there's not the merest mention of Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot?" I think that I even went on a quick Google search about the comuc. Then I remembered that it was a flashback story. In fairness, the flashback did begin in a previous issue. But yeah. Time's tricky.

Bat Bricks

I didn't realise that I'd purchased a ticket to the 3-D version of "LEGO Batman" until I'd been watching for 10 minutes. No difference. 'Twas a solid experience anyway. 

It was a long while before I actually got around to seeing the previous LEGO film. I just didn't feel the draw? At the time, I was far more interested in the cinematic treatment of "Mr. Peabody and Sherman". I eventually caught that LEGO one on Netflix or something, and I did enjoy it, but this one elicited a more visceral interest in me.

Maybe it had something to do with the difference between the respective protagonists of this spinoff and its predecessor. Of course, I love Chris Pratt, but his character in "The LEGO Movie" was a deliberately bland everyman, whereas the Batman film focused on a spoilt narcissist with insomnia, a gusto for loud music, and dedication to a career that probably costs more than it brings in. It just felt more relatable.

The plot was quite direct, focusing in large part on Joker's familiar fixation on his relationship with Batman. I did notice that Harley cheered on this obsession. There was an emphasis on the neglect Joker felt from Batman. Though it was passed over here, incarnations of this material often make a point of making Joker the aloof object of the ignored Harley's affections, while he's driven to chase after Batman. It's a dynamic redolent of an old "How I Met Your Mother" episode or something. 

Bonus Question!

Most surprising reference?

The film made a point of calling out the apparent obscurity of the Daleks it featured, though I thought that the inclusion of shark repellent was a far deeper cut.