Ganondorf: Hyrule's Menace or simply misunderstood...?

The Legend of Zelda has been a long running staple in the Nintendo franchise. Since 1986 the world of Hyrule has taken many on a journey through hardship, battle and emotions in order to save it from the very incarnation of evil itself. Ganon, also referred to as Ganondorf in later games, serves as the primary antagonist of the series struggling against our hero to gain complete dominance over Hyrule for the sake of greed and power. Now while I'm not one to argue this fact, I have always wondered if our power hungry pig friend was always truly evil. I always wondered what brought him to this place where he felt the need to gain more power. While little is actually given on Ganon's history aside from serving as the primary antagonist in a majority of the games, his life is pretty much shrouded in mystery. It's not until later in the series that the players are given a specific type of background on our evil foe with the first glimpse of this in the 1997 game Ocarina of Time. I always enjoyed the fact that Ganon wasn't necessarily defeated in Ocarina of Time's installment so much as he was simply sealed away. It showed that despite obtaining the power through dark methods, Ganon insured himself a place in all of eternity as a wielder of the sacred Triforce. I would honestly love to see a game where the players dive into Ganon's story and what exactly made him be this utterly corrupt, power driven monster who plunges Hyrule into a world of chaos with his rule. What brought him to this point?

So we get a sense of a prophecy with Ganon's backstory in Ocarina of Time as he's the first male born every 100 years within his tribe. While not necessarily making a whole lot of sense for the people of the tribe, it gives the players a strong sense that his coming to be was destiny's form of a cruel joke. Better yet, every male born into the Gerudo tribe is then tasked with being the king of them! Royalty! That presence doesn't get any better! One could only imagine how a boy with such a large destiny ahead of himself becomes so obsessed with getting more and more power. What pushed him to this point? Was he unfit to rule? Weaker than the other females and unable to command their respect because of it? I'm not simply convinced that he was just born evil, no one simply is.

On top of all of this Ganon succeeds in obtaining the Triforce of Power making it so that he will be forever locked in battle against the other wielders of the remaining two piece, creating a balance between the three forces. The fact that a villain becomes an everlasting being in this eternal struggle blew my mind as a child. Never, as a child, had something that different ever cross my paths in other games and stories. One simply defeated the enemy saved the world. Nah uh, not in this game! Ganon became a permanent piece on the board that could never truly be defeated, simply hindered. This blew my mind!

Call me a skeptic, but I have a hard time believing that the world of Hyrule simply existed without turmoil. While nothing ever describes the world ever having issues, there is a reason why Ganon finds Zelda and her kingdom as unfit to rule the land. So I ask what this reason is? Why is it that he's so obsessed with ruling over a kingdom if there is nothing apparently wrong with the way things are? Has the royal family scorned Ganon before? Could there potentially be a bigger story to Ganon than simply craving the desire to rule over a kingdom and bring the world into his rule?

After seeing the Watchmen film, I couldn't help but find logic in grand scheme of things and how Dr. Manhattan serving as the ultimate evil helped unite the world from their internal conflict. Ganon plays a similar role in this aspect. While oppressing a majority of Hyrule, does he not succeed in uniting them against a central force. It was Jack Heath that wrote the famous quote from The Lab that said: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Ganon serves this purpose as he is the great evil that the world knows about and strives to overcome. Being a central enemy greater than any other forces people to see the pointless bickering over small things to unite them towards a common goal. This I argue is Ganon's great achievement, as he turns a world of separation into a world of unity. Before this, every race merely kept to themselves for the most part. The Gorons stayed on their mountain, the Zora's in their ocean, and several other races in their respective homes. Ganon broke through barriers to make them leave their areas of comfort to endure a battle that forces others to work together in supporting a warrior of light, our great hero Link.

Without evil Link would have no need to exist because the world wouldn't need him to intervene. He would simply be an ordinary boy going about an ordinary life. Maybe it's some underlying message from Nintendo's writers, but why not simply have Link defeat Ganon once and for all? It's this eternal balance that Nintendo strives to explain, showing the players that no matter what happens, evil will always exist in one form or another. Nothing in this world completely defeats it. Ganon is destined to always return. He's a piece of a much larger constructed mechanism that's always in motion.

Personally, I would love to see a Zelda game discussing the origin of Ganon and what let him to be the way he is currently seen. It would definitely be a new direction Nintendo could go that could be done very well.

Batman:The Battle for the Cowl (Dini vs. Nolan)

I've been an avid Batman fan since I could remember. Saturday mornings were filled with watching old VHS tapes and playing with toys, wearing batman pajamas and seeing whatever I could that featured our beloved caped crusader. Who doesn't love a hero without powers standing up toe to toe with some of the best of them out there, merely using his wit and fancy gadgets? So you can imagine my anticipation for an amazing live action Batman film that could bring to life what I have only seen in cartoons, games and comic books. Well unfortunately I have still yet to be convinced that there could be one.

When Nolan came out with the Dark Knight trilogy films, you could imagine my surprised by how much I disliked the films. I felt they fell short on every account compared to the animated films that I saw as a child. 

The Origin

This is the most iconic part of Batman is definitely his origin story. It's what shapes his character into being. With the loss of his parents Bruce swears an oath to avenge his parents by bringing justice to his city. Here we have a tiny child making a pretty big promise to his dead parents and one that he'll continue to upkeep for as long as he lives.

In Mask of the Phantasm we see Bruce go through a wide dimension of struggle and suffering with the loss of his parents. He questions himself, challenges his resolve and even debates the concept of quitting to be happy. Alfred says nothing because he knows the decision is ultimately Bruce's and that he can only act as support. It's Bruce's own desire to continue that drives him down the path of darkness and solitude as he takes on the role of Batman. No outside source, no teacher to guide him, simply his own drive to see justice brought forth. He decides himself that he needs to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies and thus dons the costume, which he designs himself!

Nolan attempts to piss all over this origin by showing the audience an angry Bruce who merely seeks to fight inmates in a prison in Asia after deciding to leave Gotham when he knows there's nothing he can do about it currently. He seeks the ways of the assassin and learns everything from Ra's. Even the part about needing to be more than a man, essentially telling Bruce that he needs to embrace fear in order to conquer it. This already makes Bruce a pretty empty character who doesn't really do much of this himself besides play with Lucius Fox's toys. He's not really a man with his own mission so much as someone else's.

The Love Interest

Love plays a big factor in Bruce's life as it serves to pull Bruce away from donning his costume for happiness. With someone allowing him to be happy for once, it causes a dynamic shift in his need to be Batman. We see both Mask of the Phantasm and Nolan's trilogy tackle the concept of love and what it does to Bruce, but one seems to show this better than the other.

In Mask of the Phantasm we see Bruce meet Andrea Beaumont before he dons the cowl. There is a bit of tension as they clash on views and opinions but ultimately they fall in love, finding happiness in their chaotic lives. While Bruce still has every desire to be Batman, we see him hesitating in risking his life because he has someone to go home to. This very concept eats away at him because he's still driven to fulfill his mission to save Gotham, bargain at his parent's grave to have them send him a sign that he's not wrong to break his words to be happy. Here we have a solid example of how love interferes and the audience feels it. We see the emotions that are shared and understand how it effects Bruce. Even once she returns and resumes her relationship with Bruce(after he's already Batman) that we see him still contemplating the idea of being Batman. We see love stand in the way of his mission but never a solid means to and end, because in some way, we know the mission is bigger than Bruce now.

Nolan, on the other hand, has a different take on this. We spend the entire first movie seeing Rachel Dawes as a minor annoyance, bickering with Bruce and serving as merely a damsel in distress. The only context the audience is given is that she is a childhood friend of Bruce, nothing more. Be it the writing, or Katie Holmes awful performance, there isn't any sign of Rachel being anything more romantic for Bruce than Alfred. It's only in the last scene where she flat out admits to Bruce that she used to love him before he left Gotham that we see anything at all. The second movie is worst because Bruce sees Rachel as the light at the end of his tunnel and ultimately pushes for it throughout the entire movie. While love is fine for Bruce, and I'm in no way arguing against it, here it feels cheap and definitely one sided. Rachel shows little interest in Bruce throughout the movie and hardly seems like she's remotely interested in Bruce in even a plutonic way. Every scene she's in with him seems like she's suffering on the seventh level of hell. Where's the romance? There wasn't even a concept of a love triangle between Harvey, Rachel and Bruce. It mostly seemed like Bruce was nothing more than a creepy obsessive ex-boyfriend that likes to push his limits with her. I'm not even going to go into the atrocity that is the third film and how Selina Kyle and Bruce had absolutely no romance whatsoever.

The Butler

Alfred has always been one of my favorite characters growing up with the series. The snarky British butler that always had a comment for something Bruce said or did. He was reliable, caring, and loyal. There was never a moment of doubt that Alfred would stay by Bruce's side no matter the situation.

Dini got this concept and rolled with it completely. We see Bruce go through heartache, death and defeat and regardless of the situation Alfred never faltered. Bruce's mission became his mission, and he was going to stand by him. He knew the adherent risks the life of crime fighting would bring, but always stayed to patch up Bruce if he needed it. Never was there a doubt in my mind that Alfred wasn't worried about Bruce, but he knew that nothing could stop him from this mission and that the lesser of two evils was to stay with Bruce as opposed to leaving him on his own.

Nolan had a different view of the matter. While Alfred still retained his role as one of Bruce's major pillars of support during this mission, we see him generally more concerned about Bruce's psyche. He serves as a strong guide which aids the empty vessel that is Bruce Wayne in these films, crucial to the creation of Batman. It could be argued that Alfred cared too much for Bruce's well-being which is why he left, but ultimately I argue that it was the wrong decision to make. Leaving Bruce's side just showed that this rendition of Alfred was a coward and couldn't help Bruce finish what they both had started together. A strong pillar of support would have stayed with Bruce no matter the situation and still have had the same impact by the end of the trilogy.

Both versions of Alfred know that being Batman will result in getting Bruce killed(in the comics it even happened) but regardless of what Alfred does, Bruce will always continue to go down this road because this mission is endless.

The Joker

One of my all time favorite villains and definitely one of the reasons I love Batman as much as I do. The Joker stands for everything Batman is not. Chaos. Batman serves as a symbol of peace, hope and justice, while the Joker serves to stand on the opposite side destroying whatever he can. And the best part about this is that he's not only insane but has a comedic side to him. I will always see Mark Hamill as the Joker. His laugh still haunts me!

While Mask of the Phantasm and Under the Red Hood are made for a younger viewing audience, the role of the Joker is quite dark. We see him torture and murder his victims all with a sadistic smile. We get how clinically insane the Joker is in both films where he essentially laughs at the face of death. We get a sense of comedy too. While the Joker is the very representation of evil itself, there is still a sense of humor in everything. He lives up to his name! The very essence of a clown is to inspire comedy in anything, so the Joker donning the traits of the Jester is supposed to inspire comedy. We get this in both movies where there is a lighter side to his character. Mask of the Phantasm has the Joker playing around with gadgets and cracking jokes. We even see him fight with a log of bologna! This gives an element of comedy the audience can't help but find amusing. In Under the Red Hood while we don't necessarily see the Joker using funny props, we get a sense of his humor because he's always joking around. 90% of his dialogue is some form of joke or another. Humor intensifies the chaos because it overshadows it. With comedy comes laughing and joy, so when the Joker does something outstanding, it amplifies the impact. While comedy is a light jab, the horror is the knock out punch.

Nolan's Joker, while great, seemed to lack this element of comedy. The Joker, while very spontaneous and chaotic, didn't have as much of an element of comedy to really give the audience that powerful combination. I'm in no way saying Ledger's performance was at fault, but the writers in that they could have utilized more elements of comedy to give the audience a sense of duality with the character. The Joker just seemed to represent Chaos. And while the Joker's main goal is always to get Batman to cross the line, he still uses a strong element of comedy to taunt Batman into playing his game. The Joker is simply an intellect that always seems to thwart Batman in Nolan's film without elements of the clown in sight besides the pain. He's just's terrifying in this film.

The Departed

With war comes casualties. Batman over the course of his mission has lost several allies, friends, and family. It's how his origin came to be. Death plays a big role in the Batman films as both Dini and Nolan go through using death as significant plot points to shake Batman's core.

In Under the Red Hood the movie starts out with Joker killing Jason Todd, the second Robin Batman takes under his wing. Throughout the film the audience gets glimpses of the relationship Jason has with Bruce and how they got along. There's love there. Jason sees Bruce as a father and Bruce in turn sees Jason as a son. This death has a huge impact on Bruce. With Jason gone Bruce gets dark and cold, practically shutting himself away from the world. His mission is the only thing he relies on to vent out his rage and frustration with himself, and he continues that mission. He dons the cowl completely in this movie, with no signs of stopping. This is an important element to see because the audience knows that even with something as impacting as loss, Bruce can never stop his mission. He only continues and fights back even harder. Vengeance and rage are tools Bruce uses to push his body and spirit to the limits.

Nolan's Bruce on the other hand, deals with death very differently. We see a more human Bruce that gives up the cowl with the death of Rachel. Death takes Bruce out of the game. We see him spend the entirety of the film in anticipation of an end with Harvey Dent being the savior of this city and Bruce finally getting to put away his costume because the burden of Batman is too large for him and he just wants to be happy. The audience gets a sense that Bruce is tired of being miserable and simply desires freedom from his shackles of the mission. Alright, I can understand Bruce seeing his mission as a burden, and desiring a means to putting it all to end, but why start wearing the suit to fight for an idealistic concept if you're simply going to lose the desire to keep going? Everyone knows Batman's mission is an impossible one. Evil will always exist no matter where you go. Stopping organized crime is essentially like trying to not cry during the first 10 minutes of Pixar's Up. It's not happening unless your a soulless monster. Bruce is an idealist in a realist's world. Finding an end is simply impossible for him. Having obsess about it makes his character seem too naive and immature. Rachel's death and the loss of Harvey Dent should only fuel Batman to try even harder to find a better solution to fighting crime. His mission should be fueled even more because of these people he's lost, not completely abandoned...

The Mask

Let's face it, a billionaire fighting organized crime out in the open is pretty ridiculous. A mask is necessary to hide his identity to his own protection and the protect of what he has at stake. Bruce Wayne is an icon for Gotham both as his civilian identity and his alter ego. If the world were to discover that Bruce was Batman, villains would do all they could to destroy everything his family built. It's only natural concealing his identity serves protection. The bat symbol was merely to strike fear in the hearts of criminals.

Dini uses the mask to allow Bruce to scare his enemies. Bruce could have very well made the costume a dragon and still had a similar effect. He used a bat because of his fear of them. Bat's a giant rodents with wings and bloodsuckers. If I see a bat flying at me, you'd be damn sure I'd run and hide too. Fear is a key component to fighting crime because Bruce needs to intimidate his enemies. Fear also helps prevent Bruce from having to fight unnecessary battles. Bruce could take down criminals without the costume, and even did in Mark of the Phantasm. His first attempt at fighting crime was without the costume, and merely a mask. The fear was the only element missing and nearly cost him his life in the process. The mask was always a necessity of his crime fighting element.

Nolan decided to go for a more emotional approach with the reasoning for Bruce's mask. Blake asks Bruce why he dons the mask, and Bruce explains that it's merely a means to protect the ones he cares about from harm. "Batman could be anybody" was Bruce's exact words to Blake to explain the reasoning to hide his identity. No. Batman was supposed to be more than simply hiding an identity. It was supposed to inspire fear in criminals because he was something that couldn't be understood. The stories go that when Batman first arrived, rumors were spread about how he was part man and part monster. He was supposed to intimidate people. Bruce even says it in the first movie that he wants his enemies to share his fear. So why the sudden change of tone on the reasoning? It seems that Bruce doesn't even know why he's Batman anymore and that he's as confused as we are as to why he's even Batman in the first place...

The Code

While comics instigate this concept early to avoid bad press, the act of not killing and opponent holds a heavy weight on Batman's heart. It's become a means of principle that can never be crossed, no matter how evil the villain truly is. Nothing breaks the code, no matter the price. This is something I always respected about the Dark Knight. It's a virtue he always held true and never condoned or even allowed while he was fighting against evil itself. 

So why is that suddenly Nolan can cross this line and simply have that be how things work? It doesn't. By the end of the Batman Begins, we see Batman face off against Ra's al Ghul and when he along with Jim Gordon are able to thwart Ra's' plans, Bruce is left with the ultimate choice of saving Ra's' life and letting him die. With the quote: "I won't kill you, but that doesn't meant I have to save you." Batman jumps out the train and lets Ra's suffer his ultimate demise. Um... All right...? No. This goes against Batman's code altogether. Even if Bruce hates himself for doing so, Batman always lets his opponent live because his form of justice is beyond that. I'm not even going to bother explaining how Bruce is fine with Catwoman killing Bane with his motorcycle and how that's all kinds of wrong right there.

Dini tackles this very differently because we're shown a very similar situation where in Under the Red Hood Jason Todd has the Joker at his mercy and demands Bruce to explain why he refuses to let the Joker die for what he did, asking if it's because it's too hard. Bruce responds that: "It'd be too damned easy" indicating that he won't ever cross that line. He essentially saves the Joker despite everything and puts him back in his cell at Arkham. This is a perfect representation of the code never breaking and even if it would make the world a better place it's not the right kind of justice.

The Mission

The most important element of what drives Bruce Wayne to continue wearing the suit to fight evil despite how strong the enemies are is his mission. No matter the circumstances or how evil the enemy is the mission never gets compromised. Bruce's mission is to save his city and inevitably the world. Even through the loss of a loved one, Bruce knows that he's damned. He's essentially stuck in an endless cycle, because no matter how hard he tries, evil will continue to exist. Despite knowing this, he continues to fight the good fight and knows essentially that his mission never ends. This is what compromises Bruce's identity to the point of obsession. This isn't even a matter of wanting to be Batman, so much as a need to be. Bruce fights a war he intentionally knows he's going to lose to eventually, but does so nevertheless. Dini never has Bruce second guessing himself once the cowl is on because he knows this is a mission only he can do.

Nolan's films seem to fall short of this, as by the third movie, Bruce Wayne has fundamentally retired from being Batman for nearly a decade and by the end of the movie has simply passed his torch to a successor because he seeks a means of freedom. With the loss of his friends and the love of his life Bruce is simply done with the vigilante life because it's taken it's fair share of big punches and he's fallen and can't get up. This cheapens his overall characters as his mission is no more something he only seeks to do part time, while being happy comes first.Why even be Batman if you're going to call it quits after 3 big time villains come in to cause you problems. Nolan said it himself in the first of his movies where Bruce came to the conclusion(albeit from Ra's' help and not of his own volition) that he needed to be more than a man, he needed to be a symbol of hope for Gotham. Well that symbol of hope doesn't get to call it quits even if you try to pass off the torch to someone more determined than you. You enlist them in your crusade, not leave all the responsibility to them. While I don't mind Joseph Gordon Levitt taking the reigns of the Batman cowl, the ascension to being Batman was effortless and cheap at best. Just because he proved himself to be a fitting person doesn't mean Bruce gets to rest. Not even faking your own death can justify that.

So there you have it. My overall problems with Nolan's trilogy and how cheap he made Batman feel. My biggest issue is why the animated films and series get so little attention while these terrible excuses for films seem to be so successful. With 9 hours wasted watching a whole trilogy and a mere 3 hours on these two exceptional films, we see every important point that all these films share be completely destroyed in a high budget film, while brought to their fullest in their cartoon form. Something tells me DC should swap out their writing staff and maybe make a live action film from one of these masterpieces.

Arrow: CW's new spin off generator

With the success of the superhero franchise, it's no wonder that Warner Bros. and DC want to market whatever they can to get shows out there. With the finale of Arrow's third season, just airing this week, I can't help but feel a little bitter and taken advantage of with how the network handled the show this season with focusing on their spin offs and leaving our beloved hero of Starling city in the cold to fend for himself.

This whole season was all over the place with plot and characters that it had me contemplating my reason for watching it week after week. I'm a big fan of the show and have been watching it every week since the beginning, but my love for the season wavered quite a bit and here are my reasons why. Spoilers ahead people, so continue with caution...

The other heroes...

1) It's no surprise that DC wants to expand their universe to build more tv shows and make more money and give the fans more to watch. The CW definitely isn't hiding heroes anywhere. In fact, it's quite the opposite. This season was the debut of the Flash, which was a big move to the network considering the essential pilot was during season 2 of Arrow. This gives the fans two things to watch on their network as opposed to just Arrow. Now while a spin off is perfectly fine to make due to a rising success of a show, you have to make sure that the original show doesn't suffer as a result of this. With the network focusing hard on pulling off crossover episodes to give the viewers action-filled episodes, I can't help but feel while this season of the Flash was fun and interesting, Arrow didn't quite hold up to how it did before. You can't just focus on the new baby with the old baby around. Both need solid attention.

2) The Black Canary was another big contender that was thrown into the universe this season. With the death of Sara Lance in the season premiere, Laurel Lance felt obligated to take up her mantle as she needed a means to feel close to her sister and do something with herself. While this is all said and done, the show really destroyed Laurel's character last season with her needless drug addiction and drinking, which was a deep hole to try and dig her out of. Let's not forget the fact that she had no idea what she was doing in the field. I feel like a majority of Laurel's interactions this season were of her either getting her face kicked in, or bickering with Oliver over her choice of becoming a vigilante when she was essentially a burden to the team. Now I'm not saying Laurel isn't a redeemable character and she can't be the Black Canary, I feel like she wasn't given a fair shot with the fans this season and she came across as a rebellious teenager going against her parent's wishes. There's nothing I love more than an underdog beating the odds and proving everyone wrong and Laurel could have been that, if the show let her. This whole arc could have taken a whole season worth of carefully weeding in making Laurel's story one that could be enjoyed rather than cheapen her character overall. So with that being said, we're just supposed to expect that she's completely taken up the mantle in such a short amount of time? In the span of 5 episodes she went from getting beaten up by a street thug to being able to stand toe-to-toe with members of the League of Assassins with a little help from Nissa? Sorry, but I don't buy it. There was plenty more they could have done with Laurel's character to make her a strong female figure to follow for the female viewers and it could have been done very well but definitely didn't go off smoothly.

3) The A.T.O.M... Now don't get me wrong. I loved Ray Palmer this season. He was my favorite character. Nice guy, determined, friendly face, and overall likable character that has a lot to offer. What I can't stand is how little spotlight he got this season really showcasing the A.T.O.M's capabilities. Sure his suit is a work in progress, and he's just learning the ropes of how to be a hero, but this was also a major story arc they should have spent more time on if they were determined to really give us a great character and not just some Iron Man spoof at this point. His whole story, while great and adorable to watch, didn't give us enough to really appreciate. I feel like they threw this in to give the Olicity story a bit of angst, but most of all to promote the Legends of Tomorrow show that's going to be airing next year. This really felt like a cheap curveball we were thrown that really left a bad taste in my mouth.

4) Arsenal. I'm very sad with this story. Roy Harper's ascension to Arsenal was a long time coming with this show. I was waiting two seasons to see Colton Haynes, who I might add is a pretty accurate representation of Harper, put on those red tights, and I was not disappointed with it this season. What I was disappointed with was how after all that time, they write Roy off before the season even finishes. We had him in costume for less than 20 episodes and just write him off because it has to be that way. Now I'm aware it was in Haynes' contract that he'd only be on the show for a short amount of time, but they should have given his character more time if they were going to send him off. The fans had no idea it was coming and it was delivered very sloppily as well. With the apparent death of Oliver Queen at the hands of Ra's al Ghul, we see Roy, Diggle, Felicity, and Laurel really come together as they learn that Oliver's mission has now become theirs. Roy has accepted his path as a warrior in Oliver's crusade and was determined to see it through to the end and then he leaves, faking his own death to protect Oliver from getting arrested. Really? I felt like the whole character of Roy Harper was thrown in the trash the moment they had him leave. I honestly thought when Thea went to look for him, she'd convince him to come back, or maybe Haynes would get his own city to protect, but to simply pass on the torch to Thea and leave everything he believed in to start a new life wasn't a good way to see the young hero go off.

5) The ascension of Thea Queen. Alright, this one was interesting, and I say if there was any character more deserving to get a costume it should have been Thea. We leave off the end of the second season with her leaving with Malcolm Merlin, her recently discovered biological father. Here we get a build up of a character working her way to the top from being a useless angst-filled character, to a heroic costumed hero who replaces Roy as the Arrow's sidekick. Unfortunately the audience is just given this in the last 3 episodes of the season and are just expected to be fine with it. So Oliver is fine with Thea being a vigilante but spends more than half a season complaining about Laurel fighting crime? Clearly Oliver doesn't quite care as much about his sister being put in harm's way over and over again as he does Laurel. Despite her excellent training, we see Thea get beaten and even stabbed throughout the season, and suddenly she's good enough to be a hero? The writers should have built the entire season around Roy and Thea contemplating their places as heroes in order to have the switch off be more impacting than just a simple farewell lay and a goodbye letter. Thanks...

6) The Suicide Squad. While not heroes per say, they still wasted an entire episode of my time bringing this concept back. The CW either needs to give this team their own show or leave it be. Because while we have fun seeing the rambunctious team strive hard to work together and become people again with the imminent threat of their heads blowing up if they don't, you're taking valuable time away from Oliver's story and wasting our time. While I'm a fan of Diggle and Deadshot, there is a time and place for this kind of plot and during such an important arc isn't one of them. Sorry Diggle, you'll just have to costume up like everyone else to get episodes dedicated to you. 

It's one thing to test the waters out, it's another to have all these things happen in the same season. With everybody's entrance you run into the problem of too many things happening at one time with very little to understand, but simply be forced to accept. Roy Harper is gone but not forgotten, the A.T.O.M exists, Laurel is now the Black Canary and Thea is Speedy/Red Arrow/Arsenal/etc. While each of these big plot points serve as crucial parts of the story, throwing them all in there causes a lot of chaos that tends to steal the attention of what Oliver is trying to accomplish and how his plot is more of a subplot to this whole story.

The introduction of characters is really important to get the audience to enjoy them and want more, but what's also important is building the story around them in it rather than simply having them in the big plot because they are there. Let's hope the next season of Arrow focuses more on Oliver and less on spin offs, because we need our protagonist back.