Unforeseeable

It was just in the previous piece (The World Of Art), where I mentioned of my vision of Art and how it was that of an alluring one. The fact that I not only see it for what it currently is, but I intensify its beauty. Basically Art is one of the very few things I view with a half-glass-full attitude (could probably be my most respected trait, given a lot of people prefer optimism and positive thinking). I say it's one of the very few things because it isn't the only thing. This is when I shift my attention away from the subjective and highly-detailed creations by man and towards the non-spatial and ever so confusing measurement of age and alteration; time. More specifically that of which awaits us. The road that lies ahead. The time yet to come. Something we always believe to have strong knowledge of through multiple studies and history books, but remain struggling to answer with great accuracy. I speak of course about tomorrow and the future.

My positive vision of the future is more common among people compared to Art as the future is something that comes into mind more often. It's something we are naturally chasing after. We are always wanting for things to look better for us as time goes by. Is that a good thing? It is... when it's us believing, hoping and fighting for such a thing. But what about 'thinking' the future will be better than now? We at times do this, when the truth is that we shouldn't. It isn't right to be looking at the future as being all good things, because it's basically a way of ignoring the bad stuff and allowing for it to hit harder. If we end up acting like something bad isn't at all a possibility, we create some disbelief for ourselves. And then if what we deem as impossible occurs, this disbelief just adds on to the pain making things seem worse than what they are. I have experienced this sort of pain before. Which is why I now fight hard to put a stop to this way of thinking? Seeing a better future as a guarantee is also us making a prediction. One without much of a basis. We are turning our backs on the most important fact of them all. That being we don't have much of a clue as to what the future holds. In fact, this is a problem with most predictions in general.

Here is something new you will learn about me. Another behaviour that I've adopted only recently. Whenever I come across somebody claiming to know a certain thing will happen, I just don't take them as seriously anymore. There are times when I even wish to reply, demanding them to prove it or show some calculations. Most times I'm assuming they can't do either because they come up with these crazy predictions from the top of their heads. Instead of reasoning, a few of these sort of people allow for their emotional bias to have a say, believing it will help with the accuracy. There is this troll for instance (Unfathomable) going around that hates my football team, saying that they are certainties to go back-to-back in finishing dead last on the ladder next year. Now while it can happen, is it a certainty? This is supposed to be a rhetorical question because we all well and truly know the answer here. Remember that this particular person 'hates' my team. He has been laughing about them and has even gone far as to insult the athletes that play for the club. How much of his prediction do you think is based on emotional bias?

When it comes to me making predictions, I don't ever expect to be right. It's rather a game for me that I enjoy playing. I like taking a stab at thinking something will be the case and seeing how far off from it I end up. This happens most when watching my favourite television shows or seeing my football team play. Predictions are merely guesses, with some tending to have more value when based on proper logic and reasoning. So when I look at how seriously other people take them and the way they attack others for theirs, I like to get a good laugh out of it. It's because these people are blind to the truth (or that they just refuse to accept it). The truth being that they are nothing but boastful clods that can't predict the future whatsoever. I don't believe anybody can accurately predict something will happen with knowledge, whether it involves them or not. And there is a pretty good reason for that. Surrounds both tomorrow and beyond. Let's start with tomorrow shall we?

I guess with me there can be some hidden hypocrisy when it comes to pretending something will be the case. I now and then say stupid things like 'this will happen' or 'I'm certain to fail'. These things, however are usually said for the sake of showing off my pessimistic attitude. I naturally tend to think a lot of things don't go right for me, so I say this stuff with the hope that the opposite will occur. Of course it doesn't always work out for me and the behaviour might seem ridiculous, but it's a habit of mine that is hard to break.

 What do we know about 'tomorrow'? Well we know for starters it will become 'today', and based off every other day that has come and gone, we can safely presume that 'tomorrow' will become just another one of them. A day full of happenings, sounds and busy people around us as usual. But that is actually as far as we can go. Why is that? The answer is pretty obvious. We're well aware of how the concept of time is shared by everyone. The speed of it is also roughly similar for everybody as well. However, the way time shares itself is not so much it splitting itself into pieces for all, but multiplying itself. The fact that we all get our very own complete 'time' and not a piece of it. Which means we all get our own days, our own weeks, our own months and our own years. This includes our own 'today' and our own 'tomorrow'. All of which are fairly concurrent. The only difference between our own times is how we go about using them and how we alone see parts of them. 

You're likely to be very familiar with the idea of certain people sharing how a day has been 'great' for them. A better example would be their reflection of a finishing year when the new one comes knocking a few hours away. Like for instance with me, 2018 has been somewhat disappointing despite a month left to go. Things haven't been going my way and I was left fighting a lot of troubles which included the moving of house (saying goodbye to the one I grew up in for all of my 21 years of life) and the mid-year existential crisis that went close to breaking me. But while 2018 has not been so friendly with me, many others could've had the 'best' year of their lives. It all goes back to how we spend our time and whether or not the way we spend it pays off for us. These people would've used their time very well and perhaps they've had a lot of luck on their side too. If we use our own time well, we're more likely than not going to be left extremely satisfied with ourselves. It's the same case when it comes to 'tomorrow'.

The type of day 'tomorrow' becomes, mainly depends on our actions and our choices as we individual beings are mostly in control of it. We live our own lives and create our own experiences. Even when we are assigned tasks by others, we're left to make and take our own approaches to them. It is why the same tasks we do can turn out different to some extent each day. Think of it this way. You have a job that is both dangerous and repetitive. There are days when you could be careful, feeling good and end up well ahead of schedule. Then there could be a day when you feel pressure, struggle to keep your mind focus and suddenly injure yourself. Or there could even be a day that's mixed (when you're feeling good up to a point when you end up making a mistake). One thing all of these examples have in common is that you are who is responsible for them. How they come about are determined by how we prepare ourselves for them along with the state or mood we are in during the time.

We are all responsible for how we use our time and how we look back on a day's work. However, we are not 'entirely' responsible. If you've come around to this blog frequently and seen a few of my other pieces (such as Very Superstitious), you would know that I believe in a thing called 'luck'. I've even hinted it just earlier here. Luck can play a small role in how our days turn out for us. But what is luck mostly here, and how does it affect us? The answer is simply the people around you. How they spend their time can rub off on us a little. Their troubles can often lead to our own. It's like somebody having a car accident before we get to work. This car accident slows down the traffic. We're not responsible for the crash, but somebody else's mistake is still affecting us. It makes us late for work. And we couldn't plan to leave the house earlier because we had no idea this was going to happen. When we have no clue or control of external matters, it then becomes a case of good or bad luck for us. There is also another type of luck which can include our car breaking down on any given day, which I consider to be downright 'cruel' luck. Then there are good fortunes that can also rub off on us like our work boss being in a very good mood. Luck further solidifies my point that our tomorrows remain unclear. We're only left to do the best we can, making good of our days whilst considering the possibility of any obstacles.

If there is one behaviour I share with so many people, it's the firm belief of good times ahead. A loose yet solid prediction that the next day will end up being better for me. Not only that, I hope for it and I try hard to make my prediction come true. There is no blaming anybody for sharing this behaviour, as it's common for a reason. It just makes sense. I mean who wouldn't finish one day, believing the next can become more enjoyable? Who wouldn't hope and want for better? This regularly comes to mind after a bad day. But it can even be a case for a great day. Setting the bar very high or even attempting to improve on it. Despite how impossible it may seem, we are always striving for everyday to be the best. It's one of the few steps in living life to the fullest. But there hides that forever existing chance we love ignoring. The chance of a new day being worse. I tend to believe ignoring this chance can lead to more disappointment. If we at least acknowledge the possibility each day, we then encourage ourselves to put in greater effort. There won't be that many bad days coming from this.

Next we have the more distant future. The less subjective aspect of time that focuses on the many years from now. Whether it be five, fifty, or even five million years long after we're gone, we sit wondering what life is going to be like when that time arrives. Will it be utopian or dystopian? Will it be as certain fiction depicts it? Will anybody be able to find out more about this? The way I see it, nobody knows. It's likely to remain that way for quite some time. In a way, it tells me that we're in the process of creating most of this future. That's why theories and scientific studies are not always met with complete support. Along with these have been many predictions of the world's end (all having come and gone) with us still alive and well. Even the Bureau of Meteorology doesn't always get the weather for tomorrow right. I mean if we had the power to foresee future events, you'd think most of us would go to great lengths in finding out next week's lotto numbers for the jackpot prize. I suppose it can be a good thing not knowing as sometimes what we don't know won't hurt us. But the unknown has a way of leaving us somewhat unsettled. Especially when it can go both ways. That's right! There is not even a guarantee that good fortunes await.

I'd love for all the coming moments to be sunshine and rainbows. I think we all would. However, darkness and discomfort will forever linger and there is no telling how they will approach us. We could be forced into wearing a computer chip under our skin for identification purposes. Our experiments on living creatures as well as genetic modification could end up creating some form of threat to our lives. And despite more than seven billion people finding space on Earth, much of the planet's land and sea still remains rarely identified or visited. Perhaps there could be dangers already here that are yet to be revealed. What about fiction? Ever watched a sci-fi movie or even a particular horror movie and wondered whether similar ideas could take place in real life? I'm not just talking natural disasters or apocalypses here. What about AI takeovers, unsightly extra-terrestrial life forms, shortages or even irreversible outbreaks of incurable diseases? I don't wish to sound negative here or anything, but I can't rule anything out. We humans are an amazingly clever species of life. But what we don't know is whether or not our current abilities can lead to bringing forth some very unpleasant circumstances during the times ahead.

This sort of thinking isn't exactly common. The questions rarely come to us and whenever we find ourselves pondering them, they don't hang around for long. Suppose it's why I link this topic to Science more than Art. After all I don't call it 'seeking reason' for nothing. Science is all about putting in an effort. It's us more often than not chasing the answers. And there is every chance the answers won't satisfy us. That's due to the fact that us humans as a collective, are still yet to figure out much of the scientific world. Science is existence without the decoration. It's the structure, the nature and everything that's very hard to explain. These questions about the future can be like us interacting with a stranger without getting to know them. We're experimenting with an entire body while some parts still remain either untouched or uncertain. There's still those bigger questions asking us if we have the backing knowledge and if we know what we are dealing with.

So presuming the top scientists of the world dispute these ideas of what the future could hold, there is forever that small chance they are wrong. As I said earlier, reality has its limits right now. And given our knowledge depends on this reality, that too will have limits. It means that such questions as these remain somewhat rational. Can an AI takeover happen? Would we possibly find a world light years away that's more advanced than ours? Will we find a world less advanced? Could we discover plants and/or creatures unknown to us outside of Earth? All are still open to interpretation, and could just about stay like that for many more years to come. That's unless we already know what both we and our current technology are capable of, which would be near impossible because we are always learning something new. So I have a hard time believing anyone who knows what the future holds because there are countless possibilities. It is just a matter of which one will come to pass as we reach closer to it.

Whichever way we look at it, one thing we can all agree on is that it's an intriguing topic of discussion. Right now, we are getting small glimpses of next-level technology, with gaming and everyday appliances going one better year by year. And there is always something that catches our attention here, making us think 'Wow! I'm amazed'. But for me, this peek into the future of technology has led to scarier prospects. Perhaps I am worrying about nothing. It may be that these ideas never come into play or will do so long after all current lives have passed. Then again I can't sit around depending on this to be the case, as the evolution of both knowledge and creativity appear to be travelling at an exponential rate. The last fifty or so years of existence sort of proves this. No matter how far we are talking in regards to the future, there are little to no guarantees. One just never knows what is going to be around the corner. It's unforeseeable.

Travis "TJ" James

The World Of Art

Want to know what the easiest job in the world is? A job for people of nearly every age. A job that is forever loved, even though most times there is no getting paid for it. Look no further than yourself. Ask yourself what it is you love doing (especially in your spare time). It might be playing video games, hanging out with friends or just simply watching television. It can be anything that brings a smile to your face. We call them hobbies, but why do they exist. While you may think the answer is that simply, there is more to it. What you are doing is growing a bond with your senses. You're always going with the flow, embracing the things that surround you and never contemplating about why they exist. It's what I like to call 'living the season' ('Live Season' Or 'Seek Reason'). Pure enjoyment of life through creativity and entertainment. I do it, as does everybody else. What does it make us? Well believe it or not, I see it as us being artists.

That's right, you didn't misread anything. Artists! They are not just singers of a song or painters of a picture. They don't have to go through any formalities to display their passion or praise that from others. I mean sure we'd have to if ever we wanted money in our pockets. But that choice is in our hands. Anybody can be an artist whenever they want to. It's the most non-discriminatory role out there. It doesn't care about what one likes, or what one can do, or who one knows, or how wealthy one is. There is no limitations and the role itself has no control over the people. Artistry exists mainly to keep everyone occupied, but at most times it's a test of character. The power is left in the person's hands and how they use it determines how they are seen by others. There are so many things we have given life to that summon a wide range of thoughts and emotions. But just think about all the stuff we have created for ourselves as a collective. It's incredible! Whether we like some of the ideas or not, we should forever be appreciative of those that have spent time both contributing and giving something great to the world. They've embraced the gift and used it wonderfully. 

It's all part of a much larger picture. An absolutely gigantic one in fact. The idea that any man, woman or child can be an artist regardless of their position in society, can well and truly hint of how big Art is. It isn't just a three-letter word. It's actually one half of life (the other half obviously being Science). It's the half that's responsible for giving life more detail. More flavour. More of an attitude. Without it, we'd nothing but insentient drones with only one common goal. From birth to death will lie an endless boredom. Truth is both halves feed off each other. So I often scoff at those who think Science is more important than Art. You'd know the only reason for this would be the solid truth and validity, which is and will always remain as very shallow thinking. If I come across any person who thinks like this in the future, I just look forward to reminding them of which of the two halves is allowing them to do so. They'd be lying to themselves anyway, because just about everybody respects Art a little more for its lower level of complexity.

Ever noticed at school how Art was just another one of those subjects like Science that wasn't treated as important? Schools instead shift all of their attention to teaching kids English and Mathematics. Why is that we wonder? Well the reason for this is that we humans are giving ourselves a focus. This focus is ensuring that most of us keep sane and don't get too consumed by the bigger questions. The subjects of English and Mathematics, address our 'Short Vision' (see below). They improve our language, extend our vocabulary and give proper life to our problem solving ability. They're all about ensuring us people from a very young age, grow to communicate with people and perform tasks effectively. The two will always remain compulsory areas of study, as they're basically the symbols of school and education in general. But little do we know that they are carried by two greater forces. The ingredients of existence. And interestingly these forces are two of school's smaller subjects. We know what they are.

'Short Vision' and 'Long Vision' are terms I came up with that refer to how we approach our lives. It's very similar to my 'Live Season/Seek Reason' idea, however it's more confined. 'Short Vision' is primarily the elements of existence along with the artistic practices and activities that occupy us throughout our lifetime. They can be jobs, careers, hobbies and even simple house chores. 'Long Vision' is existence in its entirety along with the meaning of it. Some of us try hard in working it out.

I tend to look at Art as something predominantly beautiful. A world that I never can take my eyes off. A world I'm always wanting to get lost in. But now and then I have to remind myself that there forever lingers a shadow of discomfort. That shadow being a representation of such conflict and controversy that can now and then divide our own kind. One of Art's greatest fundamentals is how it separates us from each other. While Science is what we all have to agree on, Art gives each of us an incredible power. A science of our own. It welcomes our nature as well as our approach to everything. It's why we don't all think alike and devote our attention to the exact same things. When I put it like this, it makes Art sound extremely friendly and wonderful. However, there hides a huge demon. The differences in our visions of life although necessary foundations of uniqueness, are also weapons we find ourselves frequently wielding against each other. Our beliefs and approaches to life from personality to practices, will clash with others. Unfortunately it is something that will likely forever stay with us. Best I can do is accept it and reason with all in a sensible manner.

I try hard to avoid things like politics and religion. I like to leave it in a set of dirtier hands. Never do I see myself capable enough to discuss such stuff, as I fear of the unpredictable reception and believe that even the smallest of moves would be me playing with danger. Yet, there is no escaping it. So how do I ignore it? When it comes to many issues, I fight to be a fence-sitter. I make measurements and search for the best points from both sides. Many say fence-sitting is nothing but a sign of weakness. I however, see it speaking more for my high level of smarts than my low level of courage. Of course there are still things I throw support to. Equal respect and rights for all, LGBT, cures for illnesses, protecting wildlife and friendly businesses. But when there is something I am not so sure about, I either ignore it or try to find the middle. That way there's much less friction between myself and the rest. My attention is always shifted to the side where I'm feeding my brain and senses with captivating stimuli.

It may sound silly, but I like to think this is one of the reasons for Art either having been stripped down to its core or remaining that way. When you ask most what they think of when the name 'Art' is mentioned to them, many would probably answer with associated words such as gallery or paintings. A few will either mention famous historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci or Vincent van Gogh. I don't blame them, nor do I think that should change. I mean who would want to lose something as structurally perfect as the Mona Lisa portrait in a sea of dissonance and hostility? Who would want any visual or auditory work for that matter, overshadowed by such a thing? I say the smaller makeover is worth it. It ensures much of art's finer facets don't get lost or forgotten within the dominance of any ugly head. It's important to give visual creativity the recognition it deserves. Especially considering how much time and effort is put in by these people.

I suppose in a way it's great to change how art is generally seen by people. It's probably been the best method to separate as much of the good from the bad and it shines the light on stuff we might not recognise if art was purely how I saw it. But I just like people to know that there always stands a part of the artistic world that turns its back on no one. None of us are a stranger to it. While Art is a paying job to those that officially follow its current body, we fail to see ourselves as the artists we can easily be. Anyone of the common people can bring something to the light and that something is always guaranteed to speak for their character. Sometimes it isn't just creating our own work, but embracing the work from those around us. Our favourite things can inspire us to express our nature in numerous ways. It can even build upon that and leave us learning something new. The broader picture may hold some dark issues, but all it takes is for one to think about what Art has done for them. It's the friend for all and the friend most forget they have.

Travis "TJ" James

TeeVee Exits That Failed

From fifteen years of age, I grew a reasonable liking for adult dramas. I say reasonable because I don't overdo it. I simply watch whatever catches my interest. And when I start a show, I remain strongly attached to it unless it really drags itself down. I have applied this behaviour for every show except Beauty & The Beast, which was a scheduling issue before I learned to stream online (although I might consider binge-watching this one sometime in the future). In recent times, I've noticed a significant decline in quality with a couple of shows and some have nearly seen me break my 'stick fat' rule (e.g. Teen Wolf and Arrow which I'll explain a little later in this piece). I understand it being normal for all shows to have their flaws and moments when the scripts aren't so great. But it surprises me how many significantly poor moments I've come across in the very few I watch. These people are meant to be professionals at their job.

Some are inevitable like cast changes and camera cuts and there are others such as poor acting or cheesy choreography. However, some of the biggest mistakes are those very easy to find, as they can drive a wedge into the story. I'm talking about some really dumb decisions made by people in the writers' room. For instance, a lot of the dialogue in Supergirl often puts message before the plot like the ex-alien president building a wall to keep Mexicans out. Others cut the logical flow of the story such as Iris West-Allen (Candice Patton) in The Flash accusing Marlize DeVoe (Kim Engelbrecht) of stabbing her when she herself grabbed the blade and pulled it towards her. But here I'll be putting a light on how some characters have been written out of their shows and boy, have there been some stinkers. Sometimes you just notice how the writers don't want to deal with certain characters and constantly find ways to remove them from the picture. Other times, they are simply written bad or are built up to be chucked out the last minute. I managed to find five character exits that left me both confused and frustrated. Allow me to share them:

5. Robin Hood (Once Upon A Time)

Robin Hood (Sean Maguire) is an interesting one here. For some reason I was always waiting for more of him. I guess it was because of the popularity of the hero and the importance I pictured him having prior to promotion. As the seasons went on, there was the firm belief of Robin have some sort of greater significance moving forward. In the end, it was the case... well sort of. I say this because the Once Upon A Time version of Robin Hood was nothing like what I pictured him being. The legendary archer I ended up receiving was instead much closer to being the opposite, which as a result led to some disappointment. So much so, that his contributions as well as whatever happened to him (including his exit) had very little effect on me. Whether it was the actor, the writers or both for that matter, I ended up feeling reasonably apathetic towards the character of Robin as a whole. I wish I felt different about this, but I just can't.

In regards to his exit, I've got to give it to the producers or whoever was responsible for the idea of wanting to bring forth a high level of danger and seriousness to the overall story. It's sort of how I like for shows to be written. Taking risks for the sake of delivering something of high intensity and not caving in to safe options or fan service. I mean that's one thing most love about Game Of Thrones right? If this means to kill somebody off and create a new interesting chain of events, then I'm all for it. Then again this attempt may have still been somewhat a safe option, even with the large 'Outlaw Queen' fan base. He was easily the weakest of the regular characters when it came to development. Furthermore, Robin's death just wasn't significant enough. For me, it was just another happening in an enormous sea of happenings. And I was more upset about how Regina Mills (Lana Parrilla) was feeling at the time rather than losing Robin. So unless that was what the writers were aiming for, this death scene is and will remain fairly trivial.

What's to blame for my view of this? Well it's no surprise (nor should it be) that I look towards the character. There was so much cloud that surrounded Robin Hood which I just couldn't seem to ignore. He forever looked weak and was never in the moment. Most of the time he was off camera, rarely contributing to the action. And much of what he stood for (the stealing and giving to those in need) was pushed aside for family drama you'd easily find in any daytime soap opera. My expectations of the famous arrow-shooting outlaw were never satisfactorily met. I'm not one to criticise actors because I lack the experience, but there was something that Maguire was missing for the role.  Perhaps it was the lack of vigour in his visual expression. But it wasn't entirely his fault though. I also believe he was one of the characters that just wasn't written well enough. It's kind of sad considering it is Robin Hood we're talking about here. The famous legend and focus of numerous tales that will stand the test of time.

4. Wally West / Kid Flash (The Flash / DC's Legends Of Tomorrow)

There is no need to remind me. I am well aware that Keiynan Lonsdale chose to leave the Arrowverse to focus more on his music career. But it doesn't change the fact that his exit (especially from The Flash) ended up being one to only leave me questioning why he was brought on in the first place. Or any sidekick speedster for that matter. What is the whole point or these characters such as Kid Flash or Jesse Quick (Violett Beane) when they're always going to be configured in a way that keeps the main hero relevant? I mean that's the whole point isn't it. When watching The Flash, you're wanting The Flash (Grant Gustin). When watching Arrow, you're wanting Green Arrow (Stephen Amell). When watching Supergirl, you're wanting Supergirl (Melissa Benoist). Most of the time you're wanting to see these heroes fight and succeed. And whenever they find themselves in trouble, you're wanting the right people to help get them out of the mess. What do I mean by right people? Well obviously be any of the supporting characters, but not just any supporting characters. They have to be regular additions with a story of their own to tell. They have to appear multi-dimensional and not not just some plot device. Unfortunately when it came to Wally West, he ended up being the latter.

If you're curious as to what my thoughts are on Wally in general, I can tell you that I didn't care much about him. It wasn't like I despised him or anything, but he was overall a 'meh' character. It's a shame because it seems that Kid Flash plays a significant role in the DC universe. Most of what I remember was him acting on behalf of his own interests. In his earlier appearances it was him wanting to be a speedster, then him immediately wanting to take on some metahumans. He even temporarily shifted his focus on trying to be faster than Barry. I just found him too childish for my liking. But towards the end of his time on the series, I sensed him having matured a little. The sad thing would end up being that I wouldn't get to see much of that, as he was constantly shelved and taken down for whenever the writers wanted to use him. He was basically treated like a tool in a shed. I reckon I could have enjoyed him a lot more hadn't there been better effort put into his character. I'm also sure Lonsdale would've enjoyed his time even more, and just maybe he would've hung around for a little while longer if he were to have been treated better. Make that a lesson to the writing team. If you can't find an idea that will give a supporting speedster both some reasonable impact and screen time, then there is no point bringing them on.

3. Dinah Laurel Lance / Black Canary (Arrow)

I can go on all day about how insanely bad Arrow was during the fourth season. The absolute disgrace of the whole Arrowverse. It was one of the only times that I was about to give up on a show (and very rarely do I ever do this). So much was wrong with it. The Green Arrow was sidelined. Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) was annoying. Felicity Smoak (Emily Bett Rickards) was even more annoying. The ridiculous magic storyline. That hideous 'Spartan' helmet. The 'out of place' villain. But there was one thing that would surely engrave the mark of shame into this group of 23 episodes. The death of Dinah Laurel Lance (Katie Cassidy), the second Black Canary and arguably one of the show's most recognisable and well-developed characters. She would be carelessly disposed of in the twilight of season four. A choice that received so much backlash from comic book lovers and Laurel fans everywhere, and rightly so. Who in their right mind, thought this was going to be a good idea to begin with?

Yes, I've been saying that it's great for some shocks to come around. Kill characters off to communicate that messages of seriousness and unpredictability. However, this is not the way to go about it. This idea wasn't at all original as it was something the majority of fans were calling for. 'Kill Laurel and have Oliver with Felicity'. If this wasn't pandering to fans, then I don't know what is. I mean they even had some of Laurel's final words on her death bed being about 'Olicity'. Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds. Maybe the writers knew they weren't doing so well, and thought feeding the majority what they wanted would save them. Sounds ridiculous, but it's just a theory because I don't know how they could come to such a decision. Sure season seven is doing surprisingly well. And sure we now have who is meant to be the original Black Canary in Dinah Drake (Julianna Harkavy) and Cassidy playing a more intriguing version of Laurel from another Earth. But that doesn't change the fact that the Arrow crew made a mistake and tried desperately hard to patch it up. The show was doing badly enough at the time, but the death of the original Laurel Lance was the icing that merely told everybody season four was worth forgetting.

2. Mon-El / Valor (Supergirl)

There was once that small period of time where I did think the 'Girl of Steel' and the 'Prince of Daxam' were a cute pairing. But my emotional reaction was no different to my logical one. Whether or not we like the character of Mon-El (Chris Wood), his exit just did not make any sense whatsoever. As the third season went on, we were left to think that Mon-El who at first was focused on a mission and a successful return to the future would be somewhat persuaded to stay. But then came that sudden, 'out of the blue' twist in the final minutes of the story, where Brainiac 5 (Jesse Rath) informs to us that the fall of Pestilence has seen his most evil ancestor (Brainiac) rise to cause trouble against the citizens of the future. Next thing you know, Mon-El is quick to rush out the door without any proper goodbye while Kara (Melissa Benoist) looks on, smiling as if she was not at all fazed by the revelation. Seriously, who in the writer's room thought this was a good idea?

I mean sure, Mon-El's thinking in the moment made sense. He made the honourable, selfless decision to stick with the legion and protect the people of his time. He was being the hero Kara inspired him to become. But this controversial step away from the light remains as it is; controversial. From where I'm standing, it seems absurd. If the writers had always planned to nudge the Daxamite out the door, then they should've at least done so in a way that makes more sense. Most of Mon-El's time spent in the present was just finding his place and relieving the tension between himself, Kara and Imra Ardeen/Saturn Girl (Amy Jackson). Edging closer to the conclusion, it was believed that the 'Karamel' spark was reigniting whilst the two wandered around Argo City. And the smoothest of break-ups with Imra took place in the last episode. But in the end, both still went travelling in the same direction. Long story short, so much time was wasted for all of us. The writers were gradually building something, only to take it all down within seconds. One of many dodgy decisions from this lot of people.


1. Kira Yukimura (Teen Wolf)

It's been more than a year since Teen Wolf finished up. And many of the people involved with putting the show together have moved on to other exciting projects. But one thing that happened towards the end remains unforgivable. The actress for Kira Yukimura (Arden Cho) had a few times prior to the conclusion of season five, spoke of her excitement to work of the final season. It would then be put to her a month or so after 5B finished that she was written out and would not return again. Talk about disrespectful. The crew had the nerve to leave her hanging, only to spit on her face in the very last minute. There may have been many similar situations to have taken place in the American film and television industry, but this was as unprofessional as anything could get. I won't so much blame Jeff Davis, since it was reported that he was leaving his team in charge of the writing and production around the time. But surely, this wasn't the same team of people that brought us the entire masterpiece that was season three. Teen Wolf was taking a massive nosedive.

I won't lie. Kira was one of my favourite characters along with Stiles Stilinski (Dylan O'Brien), Lydia Martin (Holland Roden) and Malia Tate (Shelley Hennig). I loved how much I could relate to her, from the awkwardness and self-doubting to the persistence and sweet attitude. Suppose my respect for her does play a huge part in my disgust with how the show mistreated her. But even if it were to happen to somebody such as Allison Argent (Crystal Reed) or Cora Hale (Adelaide Kane) (two characters I didn't like very much), I'd still consider it pathetic. Never have I seen a show try so hard to remove somebody from the picture. They kept trying to write her off. Arden wasn't even warned about being cut entirely from the eighteenth episode of season five. I have to commend her for handling all of this very well, because I honestly would not have done so if I experienced what she did. I'd easily get upset and wouldn't hesitate to hold a grudge.

As a result of the rough exit. Kira ended up being arguably the most incomplete character on the show. What was ironically one of the more interesting storylines, was barely touched on, as Kira's kitsune abilities were always met with question marks. Her relationship with Scott McCall (Tyler Posey) crumbled after 3B, with the two unable to recapture the chemistry. Some of her friendships, including those with Stiles and Liam were left unexplored. Most of the influence she had was quick to be undone by the writers and every 'badass' moment would be followed by something to make her look weak. When it came to her place in the series, it wasn't about what she could bring, but rather a matter of how the crew could reduce her involvement. Teen Wolf had a character and a storyline with so much potential. But it was instead disposed of in favour of less innovative ideas. This did nothing but make the writing team look inept at their job.

I mean really? These guys pretty much knew they had 20 f***ing episodes left. But they were in such a hurry to basically kick Arden out because they didn't know where she'd fit in moving forward. They seemed to prefer bringing in an endless sea of small-time teenage actors with cheap resumes and little experience. To cap it off, they continued to shun the Arden by using her dog for promotion without her consent. Not to mention how she was not even approached for one last appearance on the show, nor was she invited to the Wrap-up party. At least that's how I saw it. Maybe there is something we don't know that happened between Arden Cho and the crew. But from my position, it's an act of cruelty. And given how she comes off on social media, I find it hard to believe she would intentionally cause trouble. Perhaps there is one positive I can take out of this, and that was Arden not having wasted her time with the garbage that was season 6. Not kidding! I have both parts on DVD and have not touched either of them once. 5B was when it finished for me.

Travis "TJ" James

SUPERGIRL: The Unjust Hate

Before I get into the piece, let me first share the synopsis in case there are people who read this that don't watch the show. Supergirl is an American television series that began airing on October 26, 2015 on the CBS network and moved to The CW network after its first season. It focuses on Kara Zor-El (Melissa Benoist), an alien refugee whose planet Krypton was facing destruction. She, along with her cousin Kal-El, would be placed in pods and sent on a direct course to Earth until Kara's pod was knocked off that course and into the phantom zone, where time stood still. Eventually coming out of the phantom zone, she finally arrived on Earth to discover that her little cousin had already grown up and become the famous Kryptonian hero of his city Metropolis. With her aim of protecting Kal-El being no more, she instead was given a home to a trusted family; the Danvers family. Kara would grow up finding herself with a job in at CatCo Worldwide Media and a desire for Journalism, only to not long later rediscover her powers and build on a new identity. One that sees her with another job at the DEO (Department of Extranormal Operations) working alongside her adoptive sister Alex Danvers (Chyler Leigh) to monitor aliens and protect the public from harm. One that also expresses her passion of fighting for justice like her cousin. She becomes Supergirl, hero of National City.

After reading that, it doesn't seem like a bad show. However, it has ended up receiving endless criticism and complaints from everyday viewers. 'I hate Supergirl!' is an open thought not at all hard to find on the internet. This is a show with just as many problems as others currently on the air, but for some reason it gets lambasted the most. Why is that? There is so many shows similar to this one, but this one cops the whack. The fact that so many want for the axe to swing and for the cast and crew to lose their job, all because they personally don't like it. Could people be anymore selfish? Luckily these people aren't in the position of power. But I'd like to dig a bit deeper. I'd like to look at some of the most common reasons why they detest this series so much. Consensus tells me Supergirl isn't anywhere near flat out terrible, and the ratings aren't so different from other shows on the same network. So why does there appear to be so much hate coming out and why are these critics trying so hard to make it seem that it deserves this?

I myself, see the main reason for the unfair hatred as her simply being a female superhero. Her being a girl. I see it as her not being the ever so popular Superman, who by the way has had enough films and television shows already focused on him. I see it as people not appreciating something different. Something that has rarely been touched on in the DC Universe. These shouldn't be spat on but rather celebrated. Credit where it's due to Greg Berlanti for helping shine a light on the lesser-known material. Sure, Clark's older (now younger) cousin isn't ever going to take the spotlight off him in general, but I see it as both great and necessary to open newer generations to something they won't be as familiar with. Time to expand the DC Universe and look beyond both the 'Dark Knight' and the 'Man of Steel'. And what a better way to do that than with Supergirl. A character once old, dusty and from the shelf is now going through the process of revitalisation. Benoist is mostly to thank for that. Supergirl is in my opinion, a decent show. So I thought about looking at some of the other common reasons suggesting otherwise and seeing if any make sense. Here are nine I've come across so far:

1. It's Too Political

I'm not going to lie. I have been one of so many people to express my disinterest in politics. I have been one of so many people that has searched for a getaway and called for most of scripted television to embrace imagination more than reach out to the real world. But there are just some things I have to accept. DC Comics have a long history of interpreting political matters in their own way, especially when they involve such characters as a couple of our highly-adored Kryptonians. To expect anything less is simply impossible. When taking away the issues of our society from the DC world, we are also taking away the purpose from our favourite crime-fighting superheroes. Supergirl as confirmed many times by the show-runners, is and has always been a political show. Supergirl herself, as well as her more famous cousin have always been symbols of certain political topics. Whining about this does us no favours. If we don't like it for this, then we don't watch it. To ask for no politics will just come across as an implication. One that says we don't like these characters.

2. It's Too Girly

I will agree this was the case during the first half of season one, but that's about it. Back then, I did feel as if I wasn't welcome to view the series. Kara was mainly about finding her feet as a Superhero and inspiring young girls to find their inner strength. It's not a bad thing, but we'd prefer if the show didn't so much do it in a way that made both male characters and male audiences seem inferior. Supergirl at the beginning was kind of cheesy and a little unnerving. It placed a lot of its attention around the drama of Kara's transition to heroism as well as her love life. The action scenes weren't memorable enough. And it was a time when the series was putting all of its focus on women looking both formidable and independent. Thankfully, that has changed. Supergirl now is more or less like the other shows. It's well-balanced, takes itself seriously, and the flaws and inconsistencies it currently holds are not so much those that were shared to us three years ago. If it hadn't have changed, I'm not sure I'd be watching it now. The fact is it the show's not 'girly' anymore. So if anyone were to see it as that at the moment, I'd be left thinking they haven't bothered tuning in after the first season.

Do you want to know something funny that I once read? And by funny, I mean just bizarre. Something that had me questioning how this particular person thought. Scrolling down the comments section of a YouTube video discussing the show, I managed to find something that I just couldn't seem to understand when I concentrated more on it. A viewer went on to complain about how nearly every single major villain for Supergirl prior to season four was a female. A show that was edging close to the end of its third season and somebody so happened to think this way. I mean really? You have a show like Arrow that ran for twice as long with all seven major antagonists being male (e.g. Malcolm Merlyn (John Barrowman), Slade Wilson/Deathstroke (Manu Bennett), Ra's Al Ghul (Matt Nable), Damien Darhk (Neal McDonough), Prometheus (Josh Segarra), Caiden James (Michael Emerson) and Ricardo Diaz (Kirk Acevedo)) and people don't bat an eye. But it's important we point out female villains as an issue with Supergirl? It's baffling. Besides, that guy can't so much pick that out anymore now that a couple of Kara's foes in season four happen to be males.

3. It takes too much Superman material.

Once again. How is this different from Arrow, which takes a lot of material from both Batman and Teen Titans? As a matter of fact it's worse when it comes to Arrow, because Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) has little to no relation with Bruce Wayne other than a shared universe and a few small character links. Oliver in this show was made to be a discount Batman. A brooding, rich man with no super powers in a dark and fairly violent city. He has faced against the likes of Deathstroke and Ra's al Ghul, two antagonists that were never mainly the Green Arrow's to begin with. At least with Supergirl, Kara is related to Clark Kent (Tyler Hoechlin). They share abilities, work as journalists, fight fear and represent justice. Despite having their own stories and the character of Supergirl being shelved for a while, their material has often crossed paths. It logically makes more sense given the stronger connection. Besides, Supergirl has so far done both. It has embraced the titular character's history as well as delivered interesting interpretations of DC's most iconic storylines involving the son of Krypton.

4. The Acting Is Terrible

I honestly cannot figure out how one determines bad acting in a show like this. Especially since it is a group of highly-experienced actors guided by professional crew members. I mean sure it's not the standard that will see Oscars. And sure I've spotted a couple of very minute mistakes from a few in the cast. But that doesn't necessarily make them bad actors. I've seen some great performances occasionally. Benoist just seems so comfortable in her role and can separate the two identities brilliantly. The emotion that Chyler Leigh manages to put in when things don't go smoothly for Alex is infectious. And David Harewood with almost 30 years under his belt, sinks into character so well. Associating this group of people with bad acting is absurd. The acting in Supergirl is no different from that of any other show in the Arrowverse. Want bad or questionable acting? Watch The Room, Trolls 2 or any American daytime soap opera where it seems not much effort is required. This show would run laps around them. If ever I saw someone call out Supergirl for bad acting, I should probably ask for some information on how the actors can do it right as it seems the critic has more experience in the field.

5. It's Boring.

Well that's just the critic's problem isn't it? I don't see why one would go out of their way just to put this forward to anybody. It's not going to change people's minds. They're not going to suddenly find it 'boring' because one person does. If somebody can't get into Supergirl, then they should just find something else to enjoy. There's no point wasting breath or time with an opinion that will absolutely not persuade anybody to reconsider theirs. Boredom is never a problem for anybody else other than the person that experiences it. Different people like different things. Anyway, I for one don't find this series 'boring'. But I'm not going to throw it out everywhere because it's not important. Interestingly, I find this show currently more entertaining than The Flash and ironically I think it holds more energy. Supergirl doesn't play it safe and keep in its box. It speaks louder and the atmosphere seems more unpredictable and less cliche. Not to mention that I really enjoy Kara and the rest of the characters. I love the fact that I have no clue how each episode will pan out before I get into them. And the show is somewhat about aliens. Who would not like that?

6. It Encourages Feminism

This reason would just about have to be the most inaccurate of all that are listed here. I suppose it's mostly just general viewers playing the numbers game, weighing up how many men and women are involved with putting this show together and comparing the results. From the outside, I can tell that Supergirl is one of the more inclusive and respectful shows going around (even though it was produced and to some extent brought to life for a certain period of time by Andrew Kreisberg). It has welcomed people of different ages, genders, colours, ethnicities and sexualities, all while embracing the 'Girl of Steel' along with both her and DC's history throughout comic books and other forms of media. It most certainly does not advocate gender imbalance. Sure it uses the 'F' word (Feminism), but we all tend to point out many errors in the show's storytelling. This just happens to be one of them and I'll explain why that is.

We know for a fact that Supergirl has used the word many times throughout its run so far. And we know what the show is trying to achieve though when it comes to women. You can tell they're doing a fantastic job just by following the stories of Kara Zor-El, Alex Danvers and Lena Luthor (Katie McGrath), But I don't believe the crew behind the scenes understand what the word has evolved into. I see there being a difference between 'feminism' and female empowerment. What was once a healthy movement, has taken so much damage from politics to now become somewhat of a 'hate group' against men. It to me looks as another wedge driven into humanity, encouraged by a certain group of extremists. It's a form of segregation, the first step in the wrong direction. Hardcore feminists are not people calling for equal rights, but rather superiority and control over men. I tend to believe that any movement that recognises a category of people can hide a gateway that leads to hatred and unhealthy sanctimoniousness. Sounds like something a show such as Supergirl would completely stand against. In fact, I know it does. It just doesn't seem to do well when it comes to explaining it. 'Feminism' isn't the right term. I'd just stick with 'egalitarianism' or 'female empowerment'.

7. It Preaches Bias

Honestly, which shows don't nowadays? Truth is that Supergirl has to stand for something and it's going to support whatever it sees as being morally correct. If the show-runners ever were to find a real life issue, I guess they have every right to address it so long as it fits in the story nicely. Arrow has done so with gun control. The Flash had its feisty female episode early in season four. Although these episodes were a couple of the least favourable ones from their respective shows, I don't think the messages were entirely the reason why. When it comes to season four, Supergirl rightly chooses a side in its complication. And it's one I certainly happen to agree on, as I have now and then expressed it in different ways on this blog. As a matter of fact, I personally see it as the only option due to its proper ethical approach and I'd question anyone who thinks otherwise. I guess most who have an issue with bias is because they support opposing ideas. I'd understand the frustration, but Supergirl like most other programmes is going to pick a side and it is going to explain why that is as effectively as it can. And you can bet its choice is always going to be one for justice, freedom, safety and security.

8. There's No Logic Or Consistency

Going too far in the logic side of things would be silly, as the show primarily focuses on a human-looking alien with super powers protecting a fictional city from crime and alien attacks. And if it came to logic, I'd have more of an issue with the likes of The Flash and DC's Legends Of Tomorrow for the confusion they put themselves in when it comes to regular time travel and all that. But us as viewers just have to look past what makes sense at times, no matter how much certain things may bug us. All we can do is hope for an explanation if and when the executive producers hear our voices. As for the consistency side of things, I have to give it to the people behind Supergirl for trying. However, I won't lie that one of the show's greatest weaknesses is how it puts message before the story. For instance, are we to assume that somebody as nice as alien ex-president Olivia Marsdin (Lynda Carter) who is encouraging alien integration wants to build a wall on the U.S. border to keep Mexicans from coming in? She isn't the current real-life president, so what problem did she have with Mexicans? I get the series wanting to connect with reality and convey powerful messages. But it shouldn't do these at the expense of the plot and character development.

9. There Hasn't Been One 'Great' Season.

Well this is just a matter of opinion really. Sure large numbers speak loud but the truth is as mentioned in the introduction of this piece, that a lot of the show's critics are those that have discontinued watching some time in the past. I unlike most viewers, walk in with an open mind. I don't judge something until I've seen it all. Sure, I have had preconceived thoughts which have on the odd occasion tainted my viewing experience of certain programmes. But I never turn my back on something good when I see it. That was the case with season six of Teen Wolf. I predicted it to be crap and it ended up mostly being that. However it did own some great and powerful moments that I appreciated. The same case was with Arrow season four. Another thing was that even though I almost gave up on these shows, I didn't in the end. I made it so far with Teen Wolf and it was finishing up, while I held the slightest bit of hope that Arrow could recover from the damage it gave to itself. A rule of mine is to not have an opinion on something unless I see the whole picture and it sort of the right way for people to think. Besides, I don't believe Supergirl has ever reached those depths despite what others tend to say.

There is no pretending this series doesn't have its faults, and there is probably more in this than others. But the thing about Supergirl is that the story and direction has shaped in many different ways to find its best form. You can tell how the producers are trying to deliver something exceptional. Each season of this show so far, has been somewhat different. Whether it be the tone, the character progression, the atmosphere or the messages. It has tried many different things to impress. And at times, it has succeeded. Supergirl has its desirable qualities. It attempts some meaningful stories and much like Arrow and Black Lightning (and maybe DC's Legends Of Tomorrow), it takes risks. It also hasn't succumbed to fan service, nor has it ever swam in its popularity. I agree there is always room for improvement, but maybe that's why I enjoy this series as much as I do right now. I always seem to believe that so much of where this show can go is still yet to be explored. I don't take this 'no great season' stuff seriously because it's all just what we think as individuals. Anyway, I thought season three was mostly strong and deeply emotional despite the wheels coming off a little towards the end.

Travis "TJ" James