Category Archives: Versus

Two cyborg killers, one meant for evil and the other for justice, duke it out with a hail of gunfire as the musical score. Only one half-man will walk away alive! Who will it be? Convince your fellow geeks in the comments, my friends, but be sure to bring your waterproof undies because there's no crying in VERSUS!

Our Poll Position this week is the counterpart to our last question regarding movie girlfriends, and involves the following datable dilemma (click on the small images to hunkify):

All of these guys are bona-fide hunks, but let me run down the pros and cons as I see them. First, though, what's up with half the list being made up of guys named some variation of "Chris"? That's weird.

• Chris Evans' "Human Torch": The Human Torch is an immature asshole. Dating immature assholes is a mistake that I have no intention of making. Plus, who wants to date someone who, when dumped for cheating on you (as this guy surely would), burns down your apartment in a fit of pique?
• Chris Evans' "Captain America": Same guy, different role, different outcome. The movie Cap is a straight-shooting, honest, trustworthy, genuine guy. He'd never cheat on you, always treat you with respect, and would be easily entertained by easily obtainable 2012 gadgets like Bic lighters and cell phones. However, I question how much fun he'd be. Husband, yes, boyfriend? I dunno.
• Chris Hemsworth's "Thor": Holy Hannah is this guy a hunk. Boorish, chauvinistic, and violent, sure, but hunky. Plus, he likes nerdy girls, which is a huge plus. For a god he seems relatively trainable as a boyfriend, and did I mention he's a hunk?
• Christian Bale's "Batman": Already a dark, brooding character, Bale takes it to the next level. Sure, he's rich, but what's the point of dating a hot rich guy if he's never around at night to show off? Plus you'd be competing with the memory of his dead true love, which is never easy. Guys with a bit of darkness are cool. Guys who are entirely filled with darkness, not so much. He just doesn't seem like he'd be that much fun to go out with.
• Christopher Reeve's "Superman": The rugged good looks of some of the others, but with a softer physique and a gentler personality. Plus piercing blue eyes. He's a lovable Boy Scout with a heart of gold, inexperienced in love but clearly desperate to learn. He seems like a genuinely good guy on a personal level, like he'd remember to bring you flowers on his way to saving the world.
• Dean Cain's "Superman": A lof of the same assets as the Reeve portrayal, but with a more rugged body. However, and this is key, he already has a girlfriend. Never be the third wheel on a bicycle, girls, that's a great tip.
• George Clooney's "Batman": If you like your Dark Knight not quite so dark, with a rugged set of man nipples showing at all times and a devilish grin, this is your guy. Rich, handsome, and he seems like he'd be willing to take a night off every now and again to take you on an unforgettable date. Sure, he keeps a sexually ambiguous young boy in his house at all times, but who doesn't have some baggage?
• Robert Downey Jr.'s "Iron Man": Very cute without being intimidatingly beefy, incredibly smart without being condescending, obscenely wealthy without being classist, and possessed of an innate sense of style and fun. If it weren't for the drinking, possibly ideal boyfriend material.
• Ryan Reynolds' "Green Lantern": Granted, he's handsome in a girlish kind of way, and brave with all the flight testing and such. But at the end of the day he's a whiny emo pretty boy who I want to punch in the face.

I wanted to put Tobey Maguire's "Spider-Man" on here, but Poll Daddy was having none of it. Who am I to second-guess a powerful web site engine? If they won't have him, neither will I, by gum!

Out of that list, the most appealing to me is Christopher Reeve. Most of the other guys on the list either don't seem to really care about women at all or have some sort of debilitating psychological problem that would be a pain in the butt to handle. Reeve has a boyish charm to make that superhuman might less intimidating, and he'd literally move the world to take care of you. Now if we can just get that pesky Lois Lane out of the way he'd be the perfect match!

But what about you, who would you choose? Even if you're a guy, stretch yourself a bit and imagine being a girl, which character do you think would be the most appealing and why?

Before posting the poll, for those of you who don't know, Roy Batty is the bad-ass android/replicant from "Blade Runner", played by Rutger Hauer. Data is a milk-skinned emo-seeking android from "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Here, it's these guys:

{democracy:213}

It's tempting to just declare Roy the winner here because he came from a darker, more dangerous universe than the sunny Lieutenant Commander Data. However, Roy faced off against a regular human and lost, and Data's stronger, faster, and smarter than Harrison Ford any day of the week and twice on any day he plays an Amish character. Nothing against the Amish, you understand, but they're not going to be reading this anyway so why not engage in totally made-up discrimination with no basis in reality? After all, it IS the holiday season!

On the other hand, Data has been shown to be susceptible to psychological manipulation, something this particular replicant excels at.

Personally I'd still stick with the replicant, because Data had to prove he was "fully functional" with Tasha Yar, and for that he deserves a swift mercy killing. But which would you choose?

Each of the following women has dated a super-hero in a motion picture. The question before you is, which of these characters would you most want to date yourself -- not the actress playing the part, but the character.

Four of these women -- Katie Deauxma, Mary Jane Watson, Tina Carlyle, and Vickie Vale -- have no super-identity of their own, while the others do. It seems to me the first question has to be, do you want to date someone with super-powers while you have none? The second question you have to ask yourself is, would you want to live in their particular iteration of the real world? For instance, the present depicted in "Watchmen" doesn't seem like very much fun, while the "Spider-Man" movies are pretty much just real world plus a few super characters, mostly living in New York City.

If you want to date a super-hero, you're looking at either an assassin (Elektra), a somewhat disturbed chain smoker (Laurie Jupiter), and a fairly normal woman who can turn invisible (Sue Storm). Personally, I'm at a point in my life where stable is good, so I'd have to go with Sue Storm out of that bunch. She's smart, she's brave, and she can throw a shield around me so I don't get hurt. That's a potent combination.

From the regulars, you have to think about their jobs. Mary Jane is an up and coming actress with a heart of gold, Katie is a sixteen year old girl, Vickie Vale is a gossip reporter, and Tina Carlyle is (if I remember correctly) an exotic dancer. Again, I'm going to have to go with normal, which means Mary Jane. Plus, redheads FTW!

So for me personally, it's between Sue Storm and Mary Jane Watson. Out of those two, I'm going with ... Mary Jane!

What about you? Who would you choose, and why?

Two primal, dark forces pitted against each other in an epic battle to the death! Who do you choose?

{democracy:212}

First, if we're talking a head-to-head matchup between one alien and one Sith fighter, I'd go Sith. The Force tricks, the speed, the intelligence, the fact that Sigourney Weaver beat one, all make me lean that way.

But the real power of the Aliens is when they swarm. So if we're talking about an Alien invasion of the Vader-era Empire, that gets a lot more interesting. Take the Death Star -- that thing has ducts and little hidden corridors all over the place. The Stormtroopers would, obviously, be meat. But then you've got a few Force-adepts running around, who can more than hold their own against some. But a whole ship full of gape-jawed, razor-taloned killers genetically designed to be the ultimate hunt object? I'd pay to see that!

Which would you choose in those scenarios?

All too often the henchmen of our favorite sci-fi or fantasy universes go unnoticed, unloved, and unremarked-upon. But no longer, friends, for in this week's epic Versus matchup, we have two of the all-time great Henchraces to face off against each other!

{democracy:211}

The case for Stormtroopers is that their uniforms are really cool. And they're all clones, so they're all prone to the same strengths weaknesses strengths. Plus, they were awesome when they were Boba Fett. Finally, they've got Darth Vader and the Death Star backing them up, which totally doesn't suck.

When it comes to Klingons, it's all about the forehead. I mean, their weapons and savagery. Except when fighting slight, balding septuagenarian Federation Captains. Or kids. Or, really, anyone who fights back. How did they survive to conquer a sector of space again?! No no, I kid, of course. These guys are totally ferocious in battle, except for the actual fighting part.

In terms of space combat, the big advantage the Stormtroopers have over Klingons is that their Empire builds ships that can zoom around in three dimensions, while the Klingon Empire is stuck in the same one-plane, zoom up and blast away face to face paradigm that bedevils the Federation. Apparently Khan wasn't the only one limited to a pre-space mentality, Spock.

Stormtroopers can't shoot straight to save their lives, I suspect either because Jango Fett has a lazy eye or that Imperial blasters only have two settings: "Random" and "Scatter". Seriously, Luke just wanders around the hold of the Death Star during their escape, shots sprayed wildly around the entire chamber. Since he was then able to blow out the door controls with one hastily aimed attempt, I am going to go with "Lazy Eye Fett" as the explanation here. Of course, Stormtroopers are pretty much intended to be cannon fodder, so I can't really blame them for that.

Klingons have had their asses kicked by everyone in the galaxy, from the fearsome Borg to the aforementioned Jean Luc Picard. And that mean lady at the deli. Their aim seems to be a little better, and they're definitely superior when it comes to hand-to-hand combat against anyone under the age of five. If all else fails they can head-butt you with their turtle-shell faces, which is kind of a nice ace-in-the-hole.

In terms of individual combat, I'd go with Klingons over Stormtroopers.

If we're talking empire-vs-empire, I'd probably go with the Star Wars versions, as they seem to have superior technology and firepower behind them. I always felt like Federation-era spacecraft on all sides were very limited, especially compared to the freewheeling TIE fighters and massive Imperial Destroyers. Not to mention, of course, the Death Star. Which doesn't have to fear being holed by a one-time (ok, TWO time) trick shot down a handy porthole since Klingons ships only have one or two shots total to begin with.

But that's just me, who would you pick and why?

This week we explore who would win in a fight between two classic cyborgs, one American and one British:

{democracy:210}

As a special bonus, I don't know jack about the latest iteration of the Cylons and I never knew jack about Daleks. That means you don't have to listen to me blather on about them! Just jump right on in and tell everyone why one would defeat the other, displaying your mighty geek puissance and knowledge in a frothy explosion of nerd spittle.

Er, I mean, I look forward to the enlightening and genteel discussion that is sure to follow.

Since both days start with a "T", my little pea brain got confused and did our RPG installment on Tuesday instead of Thursday, which means now we're doing our Poll Position today (Thursday) instead of its regularly scheduled Tuesday. Alliteration is hard, people.

Luckily we have a titanic cross-cultural Versus for your Thanksgiving (another "T", run!) consideration:

{democracy:209}

How shall we decide? Here are a few of my thoughts:

• On its most basic level, this is a fight between a cube and a sphere. Cubes have eight pointy, dangerous corners that would jab right into you if you bumped into it, but a sphere can really bash your brains in if it hits you in the head. You can stack a cube but you can roll a ball. Rolling is more fun, therefore, advantage Empire.
• Both of these vessels have exposed pipes and rigging, which is very untidy. So on the Martha Stewart presentation scale, both are the same. Let's get some smooth edges here, what are we, barbarians?! Draw.
• The Borg consists of countless, virtually identical mindless cyborgs who are directed via a dispersed network of energy called "The Collective". The Empire consists of countless, literally identical clones who are directed via a dispersed network of energy called "The Force". Draw.
• The Borg Tactical Cube is directed by a black-clad half-human half-machine woman. The Empire's Death Star is directed by a black-clad half-human half-machine man. Neither can act. Draw.
• The Borg are relentless, merciless killers who trashed the entire Federation and countless other civilizations across the galaxy. The Empire got beaten by teddy bears and their Death Star exploded by a single small ship. Twice. Advantage: Borg.
• Individual Borg soldiers often hit what they aim at. The only thing any Empire soldier ever hit was Alderaan, literally the size of a planet, and they needed the Death Star to do it. Advantage: Borg.
• The Borg gave us Hugh, the huggable cyborg, who had feelings and emotions after snuggling with the Enterprise. The Empire gave us Darth Vader, who was an emo angsty tween before he became the baddest man in the whole downtown before converting back into a pasty-faced Emperor-killing emo father. Advantage: Empire -- no one hugs Darth Vader even after he kills the Emperor.

So it's pretty even. I'll have to throw it to the audience for more input and evaluation -- what say you, HeroMachine nation?

This week, I give you two characters who are virtually identical in concept, neither of whom anyone gives a crap about. To make it (slightly) more compelling, the visuals are from the live-action versions of them both. Ladies and gentlemen, I present "Hawkeye vs. Green Arrow", aka "The Carnival of Suckage":

{democracy:208}

Going purely by the costume design of these two incarnations, I have to go Green Arrow. And that was done with a TV show budget, folks. I dig the shades, I think they're the ideal replacement for the traditional domino mask. Of course, that innovation derives partly from Millar and Hitch's "Ultimates" version of Hawkeye, by way of the Matrix. Come to think of it, a lot of that series was Neo-flavored ...

I also like GA's bow better. Those compound pulleys rock. And the green and yellow look more super-heroish as contrasted to the by-now-boring black leather of movie Hawkeye.

Getting beyond the movies, here they are in their more traditional comic book guises:

Continue reading →

Due to an awesome suggestion in last week's poll, this time out we're going to pit two of the smoothest, coolest, bad-boy-est captains ever to grace the spaceways with their suave selves:

{democracy:207}

Now, to some degree how you answer depends on which universe you'd rather inhabit. You've got the Kirk-era Federation, a virtual utopia that still has enough rough edges on the frontier to make things interesting. On the other hand you've got the Empire-era Star Wars universe, complete with evil overlords and magical Force powers. One has a more sci-fi edge to it, the other ventures into science fantasy.

Let's be clear here, however -- you're serving under one of these .... um, "gentlemen" ... so you're not going to be commanding the Enterprise or being a Jedi Knight. Since we're all egoists to some degree, you're also not going to be doomed to a vanishingly short career as a Red Shirt or Storm Trooper, either. I see us fitting in somewhere between Spock/McCoy level bridge crew and Chewy-level best buddy.

Moving on from the universe, we get to the character of the two men in question. Both are hot-dog horn-dogs with a flair for the dramatic and a knack for getting things done. Han served on the shady side of the law, always one step from getting corralled by the authorities and living life on the edge. Kirk too exists on the ragged edge, though in his case he's on the lawful side of the tracks. Most of the time.

Under Kirk you have an entire system of authority, rules, and best practices, handed down for decades from the best minds of Starfleet, an entire hierarchy with experience putting large numbers of crew under the command of their god-like captains. Under Han, you're one of a tiny handful (if that) of crew, operating under nothing more than a trumped-up version of the Pirate's Code.

Their personal styles are pretty similar, though Han's got a lot more rough edges to him. He can be short-tempered and abrasive. Kirk's much smoother, though if you think there's not a hot core there, just fling the nearest green-skinned female at him.

For me, it comes down to whether you want to operate under a system, or if you'd rather be footloose and fancy free. So what about you, is it the Pirate's life for you, or a comfortable yet exciting slot in the vast machinery of Starfleet?