"The Flash" brings the fun back to superheroes

[David]

http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back-live-action-s-219446

The Flash’s first season brought the fun back to live-action
superheroes
The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
and movies downplay
By Noel Murray

[Hunter <>]

----
I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.
That is not a bad thing, even a mostly lighthearted show like this
needs some darkness to give it some weight but it need not be as
consistently dark like "Gotham" and "Arrow" and especially
"Daredevil".

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <9asolah8g8822c2f3...@4ax.com>,

Hunter <<buffh...@my-deja.com>> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back
> >-live-action-s-219446
> >
> >The Flash’s first season brought the fun back to live-action
> >superheroes
> >The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
> >and movies downplay
> >By Noel Murray
>

> I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
> finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.
> That is not a bad thing, even a mostly lighthearted show like this
> needs some darkness to give it some weight but it need not be as
> consistently dark like "Gotham" and "Arrow" and especially
> "Daredevil".

I predict that they'll keep going darker on "Flash", a la "Arrow", which
is exactly the *wrong* direction they should go in here.

But current TV writers and producers seem incapable of not going "dark"
(and often "perverse", to boot) - really says something about them,
don't it?... >:|

--
"MY NAME! IS OLIVER QUEEN!!" - Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell)
in "MY NAME! IS OLIVER QUEEN!!", "Arrow" (05-13-2015)

[Bill Steele]

On 5/20/15 1:35 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> But current TV writers and producers seem incapable of not going "dark"
> (and often "perverse", to boot) - really says something about them,
> don't it?... >:|

It says they took courses in creative writing where they learned about
symbolism and that the hero has to have "inner conflicts" and such.

They all wanted to be Paddy Chayefsky, and here they are writing a comic
book show, so they have to make it somehow significant.

One good thing is that Hollywood has given up on trying to justify the
comic book elements in order to be more "realistic." Batman has a cape
because he can use it as a parachute when jumping down through a
skylight. Superman has an S on his chest because it's the family crest.
And now Superman has a cape because he comes from a "caped society." In
the old version the Flash had a costume just to protect him from wind
resistance. And apparently they couldn't think up a reason for Green
Arrow to be green.

From the trailer it seems Supergirl has a cape because she thought she
ought to have a cape. Good for her!

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<ijball-NO_SPAM-97A...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> In article <9asolah8g8822c2f3...@4ax.com>,
> Hunter <<buffh...@my-deja.com>> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back
> > >-live-action-s-219446
> > >

> > >The Flash,s first season brought the fun back to live-action

> > >superheroes
> > >The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
> > >and movies downplay
> > >By Noel Murray
> >
> > I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
> > finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.
> > That is not a bad thing, even a mostly lighthearted show like this
> > needs some darkness to give it some weight but it need not be as
> > consistently dark like "Gotham" and "Arrow" and especially
> > "Daredevil".
>
> I predict that they'll keep going darker on "Flash", a la "Arrow", which
> is exactly the *wrong* direction they should go in here.

I fear the same of Supergirl, and it's almost certain for Legends.

>
> But current TV writers and producers seem incapable of not going "dark"
> (and often "perverse", to boot) - really says something about them,
> don't it?... >:|

That many of them are Canadian?

--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?

[Jim G.]

Ian J. Ball sent the following on 05/20/2015 at 12:35 PM:

DC makes it a requirement for some stupid reason, so I can't really
blame the writers of these various DC shows. It's why I was surprised
that THE FLASH started out as light as it did. Marvel's Kevin Feige,
OTOH, is not an idiot, and recently assured fans once again that Marvel
movies will always be both fun and funny.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Tell me you didn't think that nun was hot." -- Dean Winchester,
SUPERNATURAL

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjl1vu$6vk$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Ian J. Ball sent the following on 05/20/2015 at 12:35 PM:
> > In article <9asolah8g8822c2f3...@4ax.com>,
> > Hunter <<buffh...@my-deja.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back
> >>> -live-action-s-219446
> >>>

> >>> The Flash零 first season brought the fun back to live-action

> >>> superheroes
> >>> The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
> >>> and movies downplay
> >>> By Noel Murray
> >>
> >> I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
> >> finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.
> >> That is not a bad thing, even a mostly lighthearted show like this
> >> needs some darkness to give it some weight but it need not be as
> >> consistently dark like "Gotham" and "Arrow" and especially
> >> "Daredevil".
> >
> > I predict that they'll keep going darker on "Flash", a la "Arrow", which
> > is exactly the *wrong* direction they should go in here.
> >
> > But current TV writers and producers seem incapable of not going "dark"
> > (and often "perverse", to boot) - really says something about them,
> > don't it?... >:|
>
> DC makes it a requirement for some stupid reason, so I can't really
> blame the writers of these various DC shows. It's why I was surprised
> that THE FLASH started out as light as it did. Marvel's Kevin Feige,
> OTOH, is not an idiot, and recently assured fans once again that Marvel
> movies will always be both fun and funny.

Um ... Captain America was neither. Nor were either Fantastic Four, and
certainly the upcoming total crapfest won't be. The vast majority of
them haven't been both, and damned few have been either. I think we
need to revisit your claim that Kevin Feige isn't an idiot.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/21/2015 at 08:02 PM:

> In article <mjl1vu$6vk$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball sent the following on 05/20/2015 at 12:35 PM:
>>> In article <9asolah8g8822c2f3...@4ax.com>,
>>> Hunter <<buffh...@my-deja.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back
>>>>> -live-action-s-219446
>>>>>

>>>>> The Flash¹s first season brought the fun back to live-action

>>>>> superheroes
>>>>> The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
>>>>> and movies downplay
>>>>> By Noel Murray
>>>>
>>>> I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
>>>> finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.
>>>> That is not a bad thing, even a mostly lighthearted show like this
>>>> needs some darkness to give it some weight but it need not be as
>>>> consistently dark like "Gotham" and "Arrow" and especially
>>>> "Daredevil".
>>>
>>> I predict that they'll keep going darker on "Flash", a la "Arrow", which
>>> is exactly the *wrong* direction they should go in here.
>>>
>>> But current TV writers and producers seem incapable of not going "dark"
>>> (and often "perverse", to boot) - really says something about them,
>>> don't it?... >:|
>>
>> DC makes it a requirement for some stupid reason, so I can't really
>> blame the writers of these various DC shows. It's why I was surprised
>> that THE FLASH started out as light as it did. Marvel's Kevin Feige,
>> OTOH, is not an idiot, and recently assured fans once again that Marvel
>> movies will always be both fun and funny.
>
> Um ... Captain America was neither.

I disagree. I thought that it was a lot of fun in spite of its flaws.
And as for "funny," I don't mean nonstop or in a slapstick way or any
such thing. Perhaps "not devoid of humor" (DC's endless flaw) would work
better.

> Nor were either Fantastic Four,

I'm referring to now, not ten years ago.

> and
> certainly the upcoming total crapfest won't be.

Marvel and Feige don't have final say over anything there. It's part of
the reason why they've stopped the FF comics for now.

> The vast majority of
> them haven't been both, and damned few have been either.

Feige really took over things back around the time of Iron Man. In
checking dates, he was made president of production in 2007 and the
first Iron Man came out in 2008. And since then, he's pumped out one hit
film after another.

> I think we
> need to revisit your claim that Kevin Feige isn't an idiot.

Not even slightly. He's definitely good at his job and light-years
better at it than his counterparts at dark-and-dreary DC.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjmg7p$mig$3...@news.albasani.net>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/21/2015 at 08:02 PM:
> > In article <mjl1vu$6vk$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Ian J. Ball sent the following on 05/20/2015 at 12:35 PM:
> >>> In article <9asolah8g8822c2f3...@4ax.com>,
> >>> Hunter <<buffh...@my-deja.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back
> >>>>> -live-action-s-219446
> >>>>>

> >>>>> The Flash1s first season brought the fun back to live-action

Okay, then, if he's not an idiot, he's a liar.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/22/2015 at 05:34 AM:

I'm still not seeing it. Again, he pretty much took the reins when
things got awesome at the start of the Downey Jr. era. And since then,
he's cranked out hit after hit after hit and he's brought a lot of
KA-CHING into the Marvel/Disney coffers as his movies please the vast
majority of people in the audiences. This guy is the real deal, IMO.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjnqoi$53c$4...@news.albasani.net>,

I'm not seeing Marvel movies as universally great. Universally better
than DC, yes. But their batting average is well below 500, depending on
how you count. Are we saying 'no Fox, no Sony, and only after a certain
date'? If so you'll have to give me those parameters. And no matter
what the set up, it's going to crash and burn August 7, and deservedly
so.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/22/2015 at 04:10 PM:

That's because you're not really you. You're Ian *pretending* to be you. :)

> Universally better
> than DC, yes. But their batting average is well below 500, depending on
> how you count. Are we saying 'no Fox, no Sony, and only after a certain
> date'? If so you'll have to give me those parameters.

Right, those are the parameters since Feige didn't have final say on
matters in those other houses. Of the Marvel-controlled stuff, though, I
can't think of a single clunker since he took charge the year before the
first Downey film.

> And no matter
> what the set up, it's going to crash and burn August 7, and deservedly
> so.

Yeah, the trailers for that one are not looking...inspiring. Again,
though, this isn't Feige's fault. And again, they've stopped the FF
books, presumably to put pressure on [whichever studio it is--Fox?] to
sell back the characters to Disney. Not that that's gonna happen anytime
soon.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjo87h$26v$4...@news.albasani.net>,

Captain America (I didn't even watch CA2), Thor (I didn't even watch
T2), Iron Man 2 was pretty dire, coasting only on the good will of the
first. Supposedly Feige will be in some sort of control of the new
Spider-Man films, despite the rights staying with Sony.

>
> > And no matter
> > what the set up, it's going to crash and burn August 7, and deservedly
> > so.
>
> Yeah, the trailers for that one are not looking...inspiring. Again,

I saw the A-hole playing the Torch on Kimmel recently, insulting FF fans
(and Kimmel). I imagine publicity will be having a little talking to
with him (hopefully involving his fat mouth and a tire iron) before they
let him in front of the camera again (if indeed they do).

> though, this isn't Feige's fault. And again, they've stopped the FF
> books, presumably to put pressure on [whichever studio it is--Fox?] to
> sell back the characters to Disney. Not that that's gonna happen anytime
> soon.

That's amusing. I've got FF 645, THE END, sitting here. I had no idea
it was actually THE END. Now, here's why this is amusing. Here's my
very first FF comic, bought on the newstand when I was a wee laddie,
because I thought it would be interesting to read the last issue of
something:

http://kirbymuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/FF009_011-689x1024.jpg

[Hunter <>]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 14:16:10 -0400, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu>
wrote:

-----
Green Arrow is easy: Camouflage in a forest, which is where Robin Hood
like archers hung out. :-) Of course that maybe a bit impractical in a
city of gray buildings. ;-)

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/22/2015 at 06:11 PM:

> In article <mjo87h$26v$4...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/22/2015 at 04:10 PM:
>>> In article <mjnqoi$53c$4...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm still not seeing it. Again, he pretty much took the reins when
>>>> things got awesome at the start of the Downey Jr. era. And since then,
>>>> he's cranked out hit after hit after hit and he's brought a lot of
>>>> KA-CHING into the Marvel/Disney coffers as his movies please the vast
>>>> majority of people in the audiences. This guy is the real deal, IMO.
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing Marvel movies as universally great.
>>
>> That's because you're not really you. You're Ian *pretending* to be you. :)
>>
>>> Universally better
>>> than DC, yes. But their batting average is well below 500, depending on
>>> how you count. Are we saying 'no Fox, no Sony, and only after a certain
>>> date'? If so you'll have to give me those parameters.
>>
>> Right, those are the parameters since Feige didn't have final say on
>> matters in those other houses. Of the Marvel-controlled stuff, though, I
>> can't think of a single clunker since he took charge the year before the
>> first Downey film.
>
> Captain America (I didn't even watch CA2), Thor (I didn't even watch
> T2), Iron Man 2 was pretty dire, coasting only on the good will of the
> first. Supposedly Feige will be in some sort of control of the new
> Spider-Man films, despite the rights staying with Sony.

They all had some good comic relief built in, though, which is my point.
And Feige's promise to continue. DC? Not so much. In fact, DC has gone
on record as planning to be the anti-Feige in this regard.

>>> And no matter
>>> what the set up, it's going to crash and burn August 7, and deservedly
>>> so.
>>
>> Yeah, the trailers for that one are not looking...inspiring. Again,
>
> I saw the A-hole playing the Torch on Kimmel recently, insulting FF fans
> (and Kimmel). I imagine publicity will be having a little talking to
> with him (hopefully involving his fat mouth and a tire iron) before they
> let him in front of the camera again (if indeed they do).
>
>> though, this isn't Feige's fault. And again, they've stopped the FF
>> books, presumably to put pressure on [whichever studio it is--Fox?] to
>> sell back the characters to Disney. Not that that's gonna happen anytime
>> soon.
>
> That's amusing. I've got FF 645, THE END, sitting here. I had no idea
> it was actually THE END. Now, here's why this is amusing. Here's my
> very first FF comic, bought on the newstand when I was a wee laddie,
> because I thought it would be interesting to read the last issue of
> something:
>
> http://kirbymuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/FF009_011-689x1024.jpg

People were freaking out when solicitations first made it known that the
series was "ending." And yes, some of those idiots still think that
there will never be another FF book. Interestingly, it wasn't long after
that that word came down that Spider-Man would be making some
cross-appearances. In any case, after a few months with no FF book, I
expect to see a resurrection after the Secret Wars nonsense.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre

"I'm great, I think. I haven't been able to get ahold of anybody since I
got here, and I can't leave. And the only reason that I'm here is
because I was sent here to find you and Bill Evans. And guess what? I
found both of you. Only you're working in a toy store and living in a
house with a picket fence and a man named Harold, and Bill Evans's
mutilated corpse is rotting in an abandoned house on the outskirts of
town, which I found a little bit surprising. But other than that, I
couldn't be happier." -- Ethan Burke, WAYWARD PINES

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjq9q9$4c7$7...@news.albasani.net>,

Okay, I read the final four last night. There was *nothing* that said
the series was ending within the context of the story. In fact, it ends
with "let's get this place cleaned up and be ready for the next villain
(and this one escaped anywho)"

Apparently the numbering got disrupted and I haven't been able to find
out any way to know what order to read the last two years of FFs in. I
think I found 3 issue #14s, none of which were part 1 of the 2 parter I
started with.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/23/2015 at 12:30 PM:

> In article <mjq9q9$4c7$7...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/22/2015 at 06:11 PM:
>>> In article <mjo87h$26v$4...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's because you're not really you. You're Ian *pretending* to be you. :)
>>>>

>>>> Right, those are the parameters since Feige didn't have final say on
>>>> matters in those other houses. Of the Marvel-controlled stuff, though, I
>>>> can't think of a single clunker since he took charge the year before the
>>>> first Downey film.
>>>
>>> Captain America (I didn't even watch CA2), Thor (I didn't even watch
>>> T2), Iron Man 2 was pretty dire, coasting only on the good will of the
>>> first. Supposedly Feige will be in some sort of control of the new
>>> Spider-Man films, despite the rights staying with Sony.
>>
>> They all had some good comic relief built in, though, which is my point.
>> And Feige's promise to continue. DC? Not so much. In fact, DC has gone
>> on record as planning to be the anti-Feige in this regard.
>>
>>>>

Yeah, it wrapped up all lingering story lines with pretty bows, but
didn't give us anything to indicate that the team was history, or
anything like that, IIRC.

> Apparently the numbering got disrupted and I haven't been able to find
> out any way to know what order to read the last two years of FFs in. I
> think I found 3 issue #14s, none of which were part 1 of the 2 parter I
> started with.

Matt Fraction wrote a 16-issue volume that ran from 2012 until 2014.
Then James Robinson started a new arc that ran from #1-14 before the
numbering reverted and things "jumped" from #14 to #642. Then we stuck
with that numbering system all the way up to "the end," which was #645.

If you have any Hickman books, then you're going back even further, to
the pre-Faction years, back when Hickman was writing *two* FF books: the
one centering around the original four and the one centering around the
kids and the Future Foundation.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjvm0m$m4t$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Thanks. #642 says it's "Back in Blue" part 2. Thing is, I can't find
"Back in Blue" part 1 anywhere ...

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/25/2015 at 02:23 PM:

> In article <mjvm0m$m4t$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 05/23/2015 at 12:30 PM:
>>> In article <mjq9q9$4c7$7...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They all had some good comic relief built in, though, which is my point.
>>>> And Feige's promise to continue. DC? Not so much. In fact, DC has gone
>>>> on record as planning to be the anti-Feige in this regard.
>>>>

That sounds familiar, now that you mention it. But if you missed
something, then I missed it, too. But Sue *had* set them all up with new
blue in the previous book, so I didn't think too much about it. My guess
is that they simply forgot the subtitle in #14. The writer and editors
probably had other things on their mind. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mjvtgq$gve$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Yeah, could be. Both issue #14s I found had their own in story subtitle
that was different. I didn't go digging through them to see if the end
matched the start of 642 as I was trying to assemble them to be able to
read them in order, and finally gave up and just started on 642.

[Winston]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Apparently the numbering got disrupted and I haven't been able to
>>> find out any way to know what order to read the last two years of
>>> FFs in.

When in doubt, sort by the month and year at the start of the "fine
print" inside. :) It's in every issue somewhere, usually at the bottom
of the page.

> #642 says it's "Back in Blue" part 2. Thing is, I can't find
> "Back in Blue" part 1 anywhere ...

On page 5 of the "February 2015" issue 14 (the one that came out just
before #642) is the story title "Back In Blue", though it doesn't say
"Part 1".
-WBE

[anim8rFSK]

In article <yd4mn0k...@UBEblock.psr.com>,

Aha! Got it. I didn't dig deep enough, thanks!!

[Jim G.]

Winston sent the following on 05/25/2015 at 11:31 PM:

Good call. I broke down and opened the file (such a tedious chore, you
know) and there it was. My initial reading of it was recent enough that
I thought that there was something to what Anim was saying, and it must
have been the absence of a "Part 1" mention in #14. (I read 'em
digitally, so I always check the credits and the title info that I
scrape from ComicVine.)

[Bill Steele]

On 5/23/15 9:18 AM, Hunter < wrote:
> Green Arrow is easy: Camouflage in a forest, which is where Robin Hood
> like archers hung out. :-) Of course that maybe a bit impractical in a
> city of gray buildings. ;-)

I wish they'd get around to doing The Shadow.

[Bill Steele]

On 5/22/15 5:10 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> I'm not seeing Marvel movies as universally great. Universally better
> than DC, yes.

An observation I first made when they aired that horrendous Justice
League TV special back in the 80s. DC just seemed to be willing to sell
the rights to anybody who made an offer. The fact that Stan Lee's name
always appears may be a clue: they protect their characters from damage.
DC only seems to be careful about Superman.

[A Friend]

In article <PJGdnUMsR-UaKfnI...@earthlink.com>, Bill

Uh, not always:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339210/

[David Johnston]

On 5/20/2015 5:35 AM, Hunter < wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:02:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.avclub.com/review/flashs-first-season-brought-fun-back-live-action-s-219446
>>
>> The Flash’s first season brought the fun back to live-action
>> superheroes
>> The breakout hit has embraced superhero elements that other TV shows
>> and movies downplay
>> By Noel Murray
> ----
> I agree overall, but for the last three episodes including the season
> finale maybe especially the season finale, they have been pretty dark.

Given that the Flash's mentor has been going around murdering people
with impunity all through the season, well...here's something I wrote
elsewhere:


These things are relative. Barry's mother was killed, just about right
before his eyes and his father was unjustly convicted for that murder
and is still in prison. Most of his opponents kill several people
before Barry even gets on their tail. Once he gets them, he commits
kidnapping and holds them illegally in a private black site without even
a toilet. Except for the murderers he decided to just let run free as
long as they didn't reveal Barry's secret identity, which was only a
secret to his foster sister, who he is going to marry. In pursuit of
this noble cause he has been working respectively with another murderer
(who was in fact the man who killed his mother), the man who built the
weapons for the 3 murderers Barry let go, and a woman who is destined to
create a few bodies of her own. He was inspired to take up the cause by
his friend from a neighbouring city who has made a career of out of
murdering people who should live and not killing anyone who should die.
In pursuit of the cause he lured his father figure into being
complicit in his numerous felonies. Next episode he's going to fail to
save his mother via time travel. Don't whine about spoilers, we've
already seen him fail.

That may not be as dark as Arrow, the series about the second-worst
superhero in the world, a man who ruins everything he touches, but it's
substantially darker than the character from a chick-flick who one day
says "Y'know, I haven't been living up to my full potential. In fact
for some reason I'm wearing glasses I don't need just to look less
attractive even though I haven't been a superhero yet and thus don't
even have a secret identity to protect. I think I'll save a few hundred
lives before going back to my job working for one of the ladies from Sex
and the City".