Showing posts with label overthinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overthinking. Show all posts

To Err is Jedi


I´ve been watching a lot of Moviebob/In Bob We Trust/Game Overthinker. Bob Chipman's dissertations on movies I´ve seen are always somewhat smart, and the videos are short, so I can watch the whole thing on my busted ass LG Venture.

One that caught my attention, though, was his dissection of the prophesy element in the Star Wars prequels. While I disagree that it was a well done element within a vastly not as well done series of movies, I think there is something to the rest if what he said.

The thesis, as it where, he presents, is that the Jedi's strict adherence to the vaguely presented and discussed prophesy within their world of one who would bring balance to the force and or destroy the Sith led them to turn a blind eye to things that where a bit more obvious to the audience: That Palpatine was an evil Sith playing them the whole time and that Anakin was a ticking, expertly hairdressed time bomb. That this is a subversion of  the types of Destined Savior kind of stories that  offers parallels to the story of Jesus.

Ok. Most people know the story of Jesus, Son of God born of Flesh who came to offer humanity salvation, and as a part of that plan, wound up hanging from a cross. But if you go beyond that synopsis(and trust me a lot of people don't) there is a loooot of stuff to discuss in there.

Jesus(ok, in my faith we call him Yashua because it's an actual name an actual Israelite might have had during that time. So I'm calling him that from now on. ) was one of many men who claimed to be the Meshiac, more commonly known as Messiah, a prophesised savior. But they where not expecting a savior of souls back then. Israel had been going trough a rough couple of  centuries, having been manhandled by the Greeks, Persians, Babylonians and at Jesus' time, the Romans. The Messiach was believed to be the one who would finally  pull a combo breaker on those conquerings and establish himself as King of Israel, finally bringing the nation to it's former kingdomey glory.

While that's a noble enough goal in like a movie or something, the biblical account of the actual kindgom isn't all glory. Allowed begrudgingly by the then defacto rulers The Judges, Prophets and God on High, the story of monarchy is resumed in two books that don't agree on everything(and with lots of hooks for a 3rd book that appears to include more detail, but is lost, apparently), but do agree it was all downhill after David and Solomon where out of the picture. King after King is described as having done against god's will, lead the people astray, died, and nothing else remarkable.

The God described in the Old Testament was highly fond of taking all the glory for things. His preffered method of government was a direct form of Theocracy where everything was run by him first. Eventually the monarchy ends abruptly after the king is killed and his heir taken captive. After that, the aforementioned empires took turns battering Israel, deporting it's people, and it's all described as being a result of their bad behavior.

And THIS is where the prophesies of a Messiach  begin. Between berating them for doing no good and being stoned to death, prophets alluded to a savior. And I wouldn't fault them for assuming the saving in this case was "from the skin ripping Persians, faith ruining Greeks, and economically exploitative Romans."

Now that's where it gets interesting.  Messhiach, in the form of Yashua arrives, and instead of offering them the kind of salvation they expected, he offers them advise on their corrupted religious leaders, calls for a return to faith roots as opposed to various  rituals that held no part of the scripturally ordered ones, offers the foreigners a simpler way in on the faith  and tells them that not only is he not about to get on a horse and  eliminate Roman rule, but that he's going to personally see to it that the temple they worship in currently is turned into a parking lot. They didn't take to that all that well.

Now, back to the Star Wars. Anakin is often presented by fans and the actual George Lucas as having EVENTUALLY fulfilled the prophesy by destroying the last of the Sith i.e. Palpatine and himself. While this seems a bit of a backward way to establish that a character fullfilled a prophesy; by having him do the action first, and then later saying it was part of a prophesy, it wouldn't be the first time a character unconventinally fullfilled a destiny. It's very common for characters to create their own destroyers by trying to ensure a prophesy of their own destruction doesn't come forth. But I see a bit more than that.

If we see the Jedi as being purposedly inept and not as part of a series on how George Lucas doesn't know what he's writing, and if we  truly take onto the "your dependence on a prophesy actually wrought about your own demise" narrative Bob describes, we could sort of see a bit of a parallel between the "Dark messiah" Anakin and the Jedi Coincil and Yashua and the Sadducees of Yashua's time.

The Jedi, much like it happens to Saduccees in biblical scripture, are bathed in authority and scriptural know how, but lacked a lot of not being fucking inconsiderate piece of shit people. Their wisest leader advises a young insecure man having terrible and well founded fears of  his mother dying after another Jedi completely opts to leave her in a desert planet and none thought that, with this being the chosen one and all, taking a bit of a trip over there and securing her mother. If there's something you see a lot in the bible, it's helping the foreigner, the orphan and THE WIDOW.

So perhaps there is no coincidence that the Jedi can't see the evil rising to wipe them out right in front of their stupid Jedi faces. One character describes how The Dark Side of the Force is clouding their ability to peer into the future, which taken at face value would indicate that Palpatine is somehow both more powerful than all of them, and constantly able to shroud their powers from often lightyears away. But perhaps it isn't the dark side of the force. After all, the Vanilla Force IS strong in Anakin, and he basically wounds up causing them all to die and the Galaxy to be griped by an empire. What if the force is, much like God is shown to do in Bible Stories like the Exodus, directly guiding people towards a course of action that winds up being their undoing?

In the Bible, it states quite clearly that Pharao would have been good to let the Israelites go after a handful of plagues, because, come on. Bloody rivers and plague of frogs are more than enough for any reasonable man. But God himself hardened his heart, so events would play out  as intended.

If the Force is an extrapolation of mysterious, godly power that subtly shapes the direction of things while occasionally giving people super speed and lightening powers, it seems reasonable that, if it wanted to, say, get rid of a corrupted Jedi Order that has completely lost track of what they truly should be doing, it would obviously not tip it's hand and let them access the knoweledge of a future where the problem is solved and the problem is also them being alive.

The Arc of the Covenant, haphazardly described by a character in Indiana Jones as "A Telephone to talk with God", is said to have been long gone by the time Jesus rolled around, hidden from the seemingly endless series of conquerors  tripping into what was left of Israel. Perhaps in the same way The Saduccees and Pharisees could no longer have that direct contact with God, Jedi wound up having no access to the Force's WILL and, to call it something, mind. The Jedi, desperate to finish what they percieve as their true enemy, cling to the notion that it's probably the dark side, because it's better than admiting they are now obsolete, impotent and cull worthy.

So in comes the Proto Messiah Anakin Skywalker, who is initially outright rejected for training for being too young, and also too emotional, even though they mostly agreed this was the THe ONE. And you don't see that in movies often. "You are the One we expected. Fuck you. Get the fuck out."

It is not until the death of Qui Gon Gin, that Anakin is begrudgingly allowed to be trained in the ways of the force. However, the Jedi doctrine is one that leans heavy on "feelings are bad", and Anakin enters those years where feelings of all kind start to manifest themselves. The oft remembered Yoda saying that "fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate" is dumb if it's for serious, but it's smart if the Jedi are supposed to be complete idiot dullards that say that even feeling afraid is evil. HE'S A KID WHO WAS SOLD TO A MONK BY A SLAVE TRADER AND IS NOW BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT JOINING A GROUP OF MONKS FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, WHAT THE HELL FEELING IS HE SUPPOSED TO HAVE?

If Anakin hadn't been The Chosen One, if it had been, say, Kit Fisto who took up a wife, the Jedi's complete inability to handle "people feel stuff, you know" would have maybe just ended in Kit Fisto leaving the order at most. But they took their chosen one and emotionally repressed him and treated him as less than an equal.

I sustain that George Lucas was trying to say some not so nice things about the Jedi, until George Lucas got in the way and ruined all that. Emotional and sexual repression can indeed be very damaging if mishandled, and a lot of organized religions kind of call for less exaggerated but non the less difficult to follow emotional regimens. Is this a criticism of that?

On the other side of the spectrum are the Sith. Sith embrace their darker desires with no measure. True Sith, anyway. Maul and Palpatine love the pain and suffering they cause, but Dooku and eventually Darth Vader are not presented as such. Dooku is a "political idealist" who left the Jedi order. It's not clear in the movies what his entire motivation is, but The Jedi order at that point had done such things as fail to send official aid to the invaded planet of Naboo. This is the kind of thing an older, seasoned Christopher Lee might see  happen a few times and go "I hate this club. No nookie, no emotions, and we don't even do good where we should be. Fuck everything."

Again, we don't have the full account of what Darth Maul is about, but if this character has anythign to him it's the appearance of outright evil. Many young men during their rebelious years enter a phase of image modification. Piercings, tatooes, dark clothing. Darth Maul looks like what an angsty teenager would look like if he could  change his appearance to something truly mom-upsetting. He clearly enjoys what he does.

Darth Vader, however, never seems to enter a mad cackling phase. He's not turning into The Joker or anythign like that. His descent into darkness is propelled by emotional frustration of not being able to have anything to love or anything resembling a life while also being told he's destined for great things but treated like dangerous garbage. The Jedi's FEAR led him to anger, and his anger gave way to hate, and the hate gave way to suffering.


In this way, Anakin Skywalker isn't a Dark Messiah that  was fullfilling the will of the force in a different way than expected, but like Yashua he is clearing the table from the thing that's actually wrong with the so called Light side of the force. Not the hopelessly evil Sidious, who is more like the way Rome is brought about to punish Israel for disobeying God's will, but rather the stagnant and unkind Jedi Council who have failed to live up to their task. Perhaps, had they actually done what the Force expected them to do, the prophesy would have come trough the way they expected, I.E. their enemies eliminated. But they didn't so it didn't.



Shit guys, I may have looked too much into it. Or not enough.





Horrendous Theory: Neil Blomkamp is a Chrononaut

But the tiiigers come at niiiiiight....


Neil Blomkamp just revealed that his Alien movie has been put on hold, which should be no surprise, since  Prometheus 2: Alien Boogaloo has recently been renamed Alien: Paradise Lost, and they probably don't want an Alien's Prequel's Sequel and an Aliens' Sequel cannibalizing each other.

I think it's rather sad, because while I don't think Prometheus was all that bad, I do would rather have  Blomkamp hammering in obvious metaphor's while also providing great visuals and good characters, than a second Prometheus full of "Bad Choices: IN SPAAAAAACE"
Hey, this one also had a black goo that did whatever the plot needed it to, but you know what else it had? Likeable characters you could understand.

I really do like Blomkamp. But I have a theory why a person in my age bracket would.

Blomkamp's sensibilities land squarely in the 80's.  Extreme violence and aliens and robots. 80's stuff. Neil Blompkamp's movies have been so far Elysium, Alien Nation, and a Johnny 5-Robocop mashup.  It's fair to say it's a fairly unique vision, at least compared to the actual Robocop remake, anyway. I suspect if Neil Blomkamp got ACTUAL Robocop, his take on it would be Robocop.

The concerns of his movies are also a bit of a throwback. While as a South African I'm sure  the Apartheid hits pretty close to home, It's not exactly topical in the 21rst Century. Don't missunderstand me, it's a great thing that he would use it as a refference point, but it's still.

The only thing Neil Blomkamp tackled is slasher movies, the paranormal, 80's macho heroes and...time travel...

...Because he IS a TIME TRAVELER!...

Think about it. He's got an idea for Aliens that's basically Alien 3, discarding  Alien to the third power and Alien Ressurection like they didn't happen. Because to him, they didn't happen. That's why he's making analogies to the Apartheid so good. Because to him that was 5 years ago.

Think about it, one minute you're a Hollywood hopeful with a script pitch for ALien 3(which there where alot of) and next thing you know, you're falling down a time vortex.

I'm on to you, B-K! Either way, your secret is safe with me, and I'm looking to your next throwback mash up. Is it Exorcist meets Rambo? Is it Ghost busters meets  Beetle juice? Is it Alien meets Predator? Whatever, it'd be more original than a remake of Point Break.

BGE investigates: Is Batman a huge hippocrite?

The Bats are gonna fly toniiiiight! They're wearing Hockey pads, toniiiight!





Batman. Who is this man, and what drives him to do the things he does?

This might be the kinds of nerdy questions that mostly should be answered by "he's not real, jerk," but for 70 years a multitude of artists and writers have  made their livelihood by essaying  into comics, movies, and tv shows  carefully  crafted answers to that question.


While the Bat's personality is a reflection on the artists, the society at the time, and mercenary creative need, most Bat-fans would probably  know the following.

1)Batman is Bruce Wayne, Millionaire Playboy , whose parent's murder as a child drove him to become a vigilante/super hero.
2)Batman does not kill.
3)Batman does not use guns.

You can see fan outrage for those times when Batman kills, or for those rarer still moments when he can be found clutching a handgun. Batman Beyond, an official cartoon depicting  the future of the Animated Series, depicts the moment Bruce decides  to stop being Batman as being one time illness FORCED him to use a gun to scare off a criminal.

So Batman does not use guns. This is an integral part of the character, now.  All he has is his wits and his fists and his gadgets and vehicles. Otherwise his just an ordinary billionaire who engages in regular exercise. You don't see Batman shoot up a place. Except in, like this scene.




In this scene, The Joker is gassing the city, and it's up to Batman to stop him. He does, and then he takes aim from his airship towards the Joker.

The intention is pretty clear, here. Batman is trying to shoot this single man from the sky with the guns in his warplane. While it is pretty dramatically convenient that Batman's aim is so lousy,  Batman's idea here isn't for Joker to do a stint on prison. He's trying to shoot him dead.

Now, being fair, Batman DOESN'T have an established code against killing in that movie, nor an established code against guns, perse. Many fans have gone on to believe that THIS particular Batman is acting severely out of character. REAL Batman wouldn't bomb a building, or burn a man alive with his car's afterburner or throw the Joker off a cathedral to his own death, they'll say.

"Real Batman" might more closely ressemble The Dark Knight Trilogy VERSION, to many of those fans. That one DOES establish Batman has  a reason for not wanting to kill, and a specific aversion to guns. He rejects  killing after his initiation on the league of Shadows involves murdering an accused criminal, and rejects guns after his love interest scolds him for his intention to shoot the man who murdered his parents.

After that, it's nothing but  his wits and his fists and his gadgets and vehicles. And my what vehicles these are! There's the Tumbler, a tank-like military offroad vehicle equiped with jumping action, fiery turbines, missile launchers,  and what appears to be a periscope style overhead machine gun.

Of course, Batman didn't order that made custom. He doesn't need military grade weapons. He's not a killer, guys! He only ever uses the Tumbler's missile capacity to take down  a train.  Further movies, though, establish his continually upgraded fleet includes a motorcycle that detaches itself from the Tumbler. Pretty useful for chasing after the Joker, but as we see here, not as useful for apprehending him.





This scene echoes the earlier scene where  Batman blasted away at the Joker from his high tech plane, except in this scene Batman doesn't blast at the Joker. I mean, with the enormous guns in the Batbike, he'd tear him to pieces. But he can't even manage to run him over, which he seems he kind of wanted to do but doesn't. You know there's a couple of things between running over a man with your motorcycle and just sort of letting him go, right, Batty?
"Okay, lemme explain. This doesn't shoot bullets, it shoots plastic explosives. Totally non-lethal stuff."



And if you're wondering if those are guns, flip over to the ending of Dark Knight Rises, where Catwoman, riding the same model,  explodes a barricade and eventually Bane, the movie's villain. The Batpod isn't just armed with peashooters, it's a fucking war machine.

He's also got "The Bat", a hovering...thing, also armed with  machine guns and explosives.

So what gives, anyway? Am I the only one who has noticed?
The Bathorse is also armed!

Batman's "No GUNS" thing is kind of weirdly structured. On the one hand, Batman outright refuses to even WORK with somebody who's carrying, but sees no objection to having a 50 cal mounted on his Bat Huey.

Most of the same reasons for using firearms are the same kind of reasons for putting them on vehicles. "Guns are for killing, and I don't kill" Well, Batman doesn't have to use guns to straight up murder. He an debilitate  an opponent, scatter a crowd of unarmed thugs.  In the same way he can have machine guns mounted on the hood of his car and not necessarily use that shoot Poison Ivy dead, he can have a handgun in case the situation calls for it.

"Guns are what criminals use!" First of all, YOU'RE a criminal. You're embezzling money from your company, engaging in acts of aggression, driving unsanctioned vehicles and  Second of all, let's be adults here, Batman.  All sorts of people carry guns. Police. Military personnel. Security guards. Civilians who want to defend themselves. I'm not pro-guns  or anything, but it is what it is. It's especially weird to say that in the world of DC when it involves metabeings.  Some of these people can fly and throw blasts out of their hands. I'm sure if you look hard enough in the DC universe, there's a guy whose powers is shooting bullets out of his eyes.

"Guns killed my parents." Yes, the classic trauma. Batman is AVERSE to firearms, and somehow this mental avertion goes away if it's the vehicle he's riding doing the shooting.

But wouldn't the SOUND of the machine guns on the Batmobile trigger back memories of that fateful day?

For such a presumed "important" part of the character, this discrepancy has not yet been tackled. In fact, Arcades all over the continent are filling up with Batman: The Arcade Game, a game that lets you choose from MOST of the popular Batmobiles, and allows you to shoot up the streets as you try to stop Bane, Mr Freeze and The Joker.  While some of this vehicles never actually shot anything on their original version, this game allows it like it's the most natural thing in the world.



So pick one, Bats. Either never guns, or sometimes guns.

15 Questions about Mortal Kombat




"Not even summer camp!"


I have seen Mortal Kombat many, many times. I never catched it on it's original theater run, on account of extreme poverty. I like this movie so much it makes me feel guilty, because it's a silly movie, and big ass men like myself aren't supposed to like silly movies.

But I'm a curious man. I have an inquisitive spark within myself. I have questions about everything, especially movies from the 90's. I will now onload 15 of these riddles on you, and ask you to answer them all to me. It has begun!

15) Is Master Boyd dead?

During the course of the movie Shang Tsung rarely uses his transformation powers. See, in the game, Shang Tsung can take the shape of any fighter in the game, and for the longest time this was his defining characteristic.

In the movie he uses this ability exactly twice. One is to guilt trip Liu Kang over his brother, who tried to fight Shang Tsung and got his neck rearranged for his trouble. The other is to fool Johnny Cage into going to the tournament, by pretending to be his mentor, Master Boyd.
No, he's NOT Bo' Rai Cho! Not everything is canon!
Did Shang Tsung kill Master Boyd and claim his soul? Because It's implied his ability to copy people is related to his ability to steal souls. If his power did work in this way, it is safe to assume he found Boyd and killed him.

14) Why did Shang Tsung  get Earth's Best fighters involved?

The Mortal Kombat Tournament was lost by Outworld thanks mostly to two people: Johnny Cage, and Liu Kang. The strongest fighters, Sub Zero, Scorpion, and Goro, where defeated by them. Obviously Raiden knew how to pick them.

Except he didn't. Liu Kang only joined because his brother was killed by Shang Tsung. Before that he was completely distanced from the Monks and the Tournament.

And Johnny Cage only joined because he was actively brought by Shang Tsung. If Shang Tsung really wanted to win, he would have let Liu Kang's brother participate, and he'd have forgotten all about Johnny Cage. He could come collect their stupid souls later, when Earth Realm had gotten taken over. He could have kept Sonya, though.

13) Why are Sonya's weak fighting skills  a plot point?
No aerobics clothing?

Sonya doesn't get to do much in MK. She avenges her partner by killing Kano early on and then moves on to the background.

Because it's an actual plot point that Shang Tsung only brought Sonya so he'd have someone weak to fight at the end of the tournament. That's her arc. Shang Tsung spent his time  doing Raiden's work for him by getting the REAL fighters in here, and now he turns around and decides that maybe he should go easy on himself, and cap things off by fighting the lady from The Wedding Planner.

This isn't so much a question as it is a complaint. I like Sonya, we could have given her another Palette Swap Ninja to fight or something.

12) Did Raiden bring in a bunch of fighters to their death knowing they where going to die?
See, he WOULD lift a finger.

So Raiden didn't  recruit any of the important people in the movie, even though he only ever spent any time with Liu Kang, Sonya and Johnny Cage. He didn't give any life saving tips to Art Lean or Jenny Cho. We might assume this people where brought here either by Raiden or by Shang Tsung.

Let's give Raiden the benefit of the doubt and assume he brought at least some of the people from the tournament. Why wouldn't he assist them in any way?  Why would he leave them completely out of things?

Liu Kang is the chosen one, but he can't fight everyone in the tournament, otherwise he'd face exhaustion and die. Some people  who were not the chosen one needed to score some victories. Raiden  possibly brought in a bunch of people and then decided that  he should only work with 3 of them, and everyone else would be fine.

11) Who the hell is that guy?

Seriously, who the hell is that guy?

10) Can Shang Tsung revive the death?

Near the climax of the movie, Shang Tsung fights Liu Kang in his creepy castle of gloomness. After exchanging Hyas for a bit, Shang leaves Liu to face with some warriors who come out of manholes.

This guys are clearly culled from all human history, and presumably  former fighters that Shang Tsung enslaved.

But Shang Tsung has only been seen to enslave souls. Nobody said anything about Shang being able to revive the people who's souls he owned. Because then he really needed to revive Kano, Art Lean and that guy and made them fight Shang Tsung at the end.

09) Can't Raiden stop people participating in a tournament?

I mean, he's Earthrealm's protector. He's supposed to do everything he can to keep Earth from becoming absorbed by Outworld.

So can't keep Sonya from participating? Again, I like Sonya, but she's here strictly because how much she sucks. If I were Raiden, I'd be like, "nope, you can't participate" and I'd kick her out of the boat.

You can slap me if you want. If you can actually hurt me you get the job.


08) If Earth Realm people can participate in the tournament, why wouldn't Shang Tsung  get Johnny Cage on his side?

Not to repeat myself, but Johnny Cage is in Mortal Kombat exclusively because of Shang Tsung. But in the same way he conned(or is that konned?) Kano into fighting for him, why didn't he get Johnny Cage?

I mean, Cage was so completely out of the loop, I'm sure he would have gone with whatever, had he been properly not told about the impending  destruction of Earth.

07) How is Reptile made?
Nothing about no statue, here.


Near the end of the movie, Reptile, in this movie a little satanic gecko with invisibility powers, falls into a statue. The statue shoves some tentacles into him. The statue turns into Reptile, the Green Ninja.

So, is Reptile always in  the wait for the right statue to turn himself into a Ninja, or is the statue a ninja that needs a little monster in his heart to be able regain his full form? Or is this an exceptional moment that neither of them knew? A secret that eluded both the ugly statue and the  little stealth lizard?

Talk about your star crossed lovers!

06) What happens if Shang Tsung gives up?

During the final fight, Liu Kang starts a massive beatdown against Shang Tsung. But, since he's also learned  that revenge is no good, he asks Shang Tsung to surrender several times. Shang Tsung replies to this requests with "Never" and "Save your pity for the weak" and "Spit".

But what happens if Shang Tsung says uncle? Does he go to jail? Does Earthrealm win and he just has to go away? Because no one in this movie ever just tapped out.  Even after all the cheating and stuff, doesn't he get a sanction or anything?

05) Are all Shokans weak ass pussies?
All they want...is a hug...

Goro is the equalizer in the tournament. Seemingly impervious to most physical attacks, and strong enough to lift a man, we even get a montage of all the people  he's broken down.

So if Shokans are so tough, why isn't team Outworld all Shokans? Why bother with That Guy if you could have another Shokan in there?

Is it because Goro is an exceptional Shokan, and the rest of the Shokans are not so hot? Is it some kind of Outworld affirmative action thing, where you gotta give  everyone equal participation in the
tournament?

Think about it.


04) Can Shang Tsung move freely in Earthrealm?

Because it seems like he shouldn't. It seems kind of unsporting that an immortal shape-shifting demon sorceror can go about our side of existence. He could make a lot of things to influence the odds and cause an unfair upset.

In the actual movie he basically helped us, yes. If he can just saunter in an out of our world, why wouldn't he poison or cripple our greater fighters before their get to the tournement?  Why wouldn't he kill most people who know about the tournament? Why wouldn't he pretend to be Raiden and fool the best fighters into missing the tournament?

03) How is Shao Khan 3 stories high?
"I WARNED YOU ABOUT THE OZONE LAYER! I WAARNEEED YOUUUU!"

Now, we all know in every other media Shao Khan is tall, but this is ridiculous.

You might assume this is just a projection of Shao Khan. But a projection wouldn't be able destroy a temple. No, it's clear Shao Khan in this universe is a translucent titan.

02) Can you just pull a weapon on somebody in the Tournament?
"Well, that's not sporting at all."

Because it seems that one can. Kano can casually produce a knife, and That guy has some kind of fighting sticks.

So if there's no limits on weapons, who doesn't every fight have them? Why can't Sonya just  stab Goro in the neck and call it a day? I'm sure the only reason her gun  was destroyed early in the movie was to keep her from turning Mortal Kombat into Unreal Tournament.

01) If Raiden has no power in the island, how come he can do a bunch of stuff?

Raiden is a God. However, Raiden has no power in the tournament's setting, the Island. We are explicitely told this. He can only...
NYE-HEH-HEH..
...threaten large groups of warrior men with lightening eyes...

...Piss off testosterone-ridden Ninja...

...manifest himself unexpectedly behind people...

Exactly how limited is Raiden? Because if he was just being an asshole and not directly helping well...that seemingly would go with a pattern.

What are you guys watching?