So it’s almost Halloween for you guys? Cool. I kind of remember Halloween. Here in post-apocalyptic America, you know what we call the day when people dress up in weird costumes and then track down happy, innocent families and demand some kind of “treat” by threatening them? We call it “every goddamn day of the week.” Now don't forget to send me your questions at postman@io9.com!


Dire Wolves

Chris McM.: Well, as you were asking about genitalia related questions in your last post, here's one keeping in the Halloween spirit.... Okay, as The Monster Squad proclaimed, Wolf Man has nards. But, would a swift kick to the wrinklies really stop a werewolf? After all, these creatures (as presented in most movies) are impervious to any damage other than a silver bullet. Sure, blowing them into pieces might slow them down (again, Monster Squad), but a swift kick to the nards seems a rather pathetic attempt to save one's ass from a werewolf and one destined for failure. Sure, as a comedy moment, it's a classic. But, in the HIGHLY unlikely event one is faced with a werewolf, it would be nice to know if such a tactic would work, or just piss the beast off enough for you to earn an extra slow and painful death.


I think most scholars agree that The Monster Squad is the definitive treatise on werewolves and nards, and thus we should operate at the baseline assumption that the movie is correct. But I can help explain things.

You’re operating under a couple of misconceptions here. Werewolves aren’t impervious to anything. Non-silver bullets don’t bounce off them; they get wounded, but then heal almost instantly. Even when they lit a stick of dynamite, stuck it down the werewolf’s pants, and then kicked him out a window where he blew up, all the pieces eventually reformed, because dynamite is not a silver bullet.

This means nothing ”stops” a werewolf other than a silver bullet, and the Monster Squad knew it. The kick to the balls was only to buy them a few seconds of time to run.

Kicking a werewolf in the junk is not a long-term werewolf solution, nor was it ever intended to be. It’s a desperate move to get a werewolf to pause for a few seconds, and nothing more. So if you’re planning on kicking wolfman in the nards, you best have a Step 2, because otherwise you are fucked.



Wondering Women

Joe Lex: Hey Rob, As I've said previously, I'm just as irked as you regarding the treatment of Wonder Woman by Warner/DC. When the Warner execs pull their heads out of their ass (don't laugh, it'll happen eventually... I hope!), who do you think would be great in the role? I believe Olivia Wilde has stated in the past that she'd like to play the character, and she'd be my personal top choice. However, there are so many great candidates. I believe Dorkly.com ran with the idea that Diana and Steve should be played by Jolie/Pitt, which I'm sure would make the internet explode with rage just as much as the Batfleck announcement. Haha. Sorry to go off on a tangent there. Seriously though, what actresses would you like to see in the role?


I love Olivia Wilde — I mean love — but I can’t see her in the role. She’s so skinny, I think she’d actually look silly trying to pull off a Wonder Woman-esque feat like tossing a car at Giganta or something. Not that Wonder Woman needs to look like a weightlifter or anything, but I do think she needs to be less dainty than Wilde.

So for my picks… right now I’d have to go with Charlize Theron. She’s an exceptional actress who could make Diana really compelling, and her beauty is kind of classic in a way that would suit the character well, I think. I have no problem with Angelina Jolie (on any level) but Brad Pitt would be a terrible Steve Trevor, mainly because you don’t want any doubt that Wonder Woman is the star of her own movie.


I think Jennifer Lawrence is probably too young right now, but I think she’d also be a fantastic Wonder Woman in a few years (which it will take before DC gets their shit together enough to cobble together some kind of Wonder Woman movie). She’s plenty tough in The Hunger Games and as Mystique in X-Men: First Class, and she’s got the star power, too. But I assume you all have your ideas as well — list 'em in the comments.


Jack Squat

Dylan K.: Postman, Is there any hope I will ever get to see Samurai Jack return to the past and defeat Aku? How can they let one of the greatest cartoon series ever remain unfinished for so long?


Unless it happens in the new IDW comic, you are shit out of luck. Cartoon Network owns Samurai Jack, and they are 1) done with it but also 2) not going to give anybody else the animation rights. Cartoon Network gives no shits about giving Samurai Jack or his fans the closure they deserve.

On the other hand, there is a somewhat decent chance that the new comic may actually wrap up the storyline. It’s supposed to be “season five” of the show, and it’s being drawn by original character designer Andy Suriano, and I know Jack is near and dear to his heart. He probably wants a real ending more than you do, and I’m betting he (and writer Jim Zub) will give it to you there, whenever the comic ends.



Brand Management

Emily B-L.: In the Star Trek universe, do you think that Tricorder is a brand name that people use as the generic term, like Kleenex or AstroTurf? If so, what would off-brand Tricorders be called? Thanks for taking the time to consider this pressing issue.

Seeing as there are different three types of tricorder — the regular one, the medical one, and the engineering one — and that each all do three different things while all being called tricorders, I’d say the chance of Tricorder being the brand name used as the term for all such devices is about 90%.


So if Tricorder is the main brand, there are certainly alternative, just like you can buy various forms of facial tissue by a maker other than Kleenex. These brands include:

• The Triple Threat Assessor

• The Sitwell Scan-u-Tron

• The Know-It-All

• SmartShark (don’t ask)

• The Hitachi Magic Wand


Agents & Rage-nts

TV Series DVD Backlog: Dear Mr. Postman, It's apparently currently popular in some geek circles to trash "Agents of SHIELD." But after thinking about how "Babylon 5" was initially received by "Star Trek" fans, I wonder if there were other TV shows which actually got better despite initial fan ragging against the show?


There absolutely were. It often takes a while for a show to get good — the cast has to gel, the showrunners need time to figure out what works and what doesn’t, and generally the more episodes you have the more you can draw on the mythology your show has created, making for better stories.

So really the more pressing issue is if the show had an initial mass bitching by fans. The show that comes instantly to mind is Enterprise, which was loathed by Star Trek fans but managed to improve in its second season (how much it improved is a matter of some debate). I don’t know how big the backlash was, but a lot of people thought Dollhouse was pretty shitty for its first half-dozen episodes — myself included — and people were let down because they assumed the new Joss Whedon show would be as good as Firefly. It wasn't, but it also definitely got better.


Like Dollhouse, Agents of SHIELD is suffering from serious over-expectations. It’s not that SHIELD is really that bad, but everyone wanted it to be perfect, and it's not, so people are magnifying its flaws as if it’s the worst show ever. Are most of the non-Clark Gregg characters kind of annoying? Is the show trying too hard to be accessible to mainstream audiences? Yes on both counts. But there’s only been a few episodes. The characters will improve, especially as they start to create histories together. The showrunners will settle down and trust their audience more. I guarantee you in two years Agents of SHIELD will be great and the only people bitching will be the people who refuse to like anything Joss Whedon is involved in.


Dareman and Batdevil

Chris B.: Dear Postman, I've recently realized that it would seem to make more sense if Batman and Daredevil swapped powers. A guy dressed like a bat should be the one who is blind and has echolocation abilities, and the "daredevil" should be the one risking serious injury because he has no special powers whatsoever, other than peak athletic ability. Do you agree? Or do you think that making these relatively small changes would fundamentally alter the characters and the way they interact with their respective universes?


Huh. That… that makes a lot of sense, actually.

That might actually be a cool aspect to Batman, seeing as it would actually give him something of a weakness. Not that I really mind Batman being a complete badass in control of pretty much every situation, but the idea of Batman also being blind is kind of fascinating.


I was about to say that the switch would hurt Daredevil, because even though he could see, he wouldn’t have Batman’s intelligence and resources… and then I realized that would make him even more of a daredevil, to thrust himself into dangerous situations where his only resource is his body and physical skills. Which is also perfect.

So, yeah… good call. Now go back in time and get Bob Kane and Stan Lee on board.

Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the postman@io9.com! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!