ChronosCat

By "Smoke", I meant the wizard who Grace and Sam met. I had actually forgotten that Luke's friend Camdin (presumably the person Smoke copied the spell from), had talked about spying on "the Super Chicks" - though if he is doing it he's going against Luke's instruction not to spy. Also, while an experienced wizard would be in a much better position to break in to the house, the spy could also just be a quick learner and/or quite lucky. I was mostly just using Immortals of an example of the fact that whatever security the house has doesn't protect against every sort of magical intrusion. That said, Sirleck was able to exist on another plane of reality as well (and he was originally human); this raises the possibility that humans could enter and leave the spirit plane under their own power (as opposed to whatever led to Magus being stuck there).

There was a movie of the 66 show. I haven't seen it, but my understanding is it's a villain-team-up story with Catwoman as one of the villains. I have seen several episodes of the show with Catwoman in them, and there actually was some hints of romantic interest between Batman and Catwoman. However, Batman made it clear he could never be with her unless she gave up her life of crime, which she couldn't bring herself to do, so it never went anywhere. (I don't recall any talk about her backstory in those episodes.) Despite the hints of romance, I do agree with your assessment that she was an antagonist and not a protagonist in that series/movie.

Being able to turn into a gaseous form should allow someone to get into a non-airtight house without breaking anything or tripping conventional security systems. If no one is home or everyone is asleep, it then shouldn't be too hard to explore the house (though why they would choose the spare door in the basement to enchant, I don't know). If Smoke doesn't have to be visible while in smoke form, they could even explore while people are there and awake. Of course, the Verres house probably has some sort of magical security system, but since we don't know anything about it, it's hard to know what weaknesses it might have. I wouldn't consider it out of the question that it had holes that a magic user with the right spell might be able to take advantage of. (It's a different sort of magic, but at the very least Immortals seem to be able to come and go as they please.)

So, I haven't totally dropped my theory that the click involves some sort of magical "locking" spell, but I have a new alternate theory: What if the click is the result of a device hidden in the doorknob designed to record the spells being used nearby (and possibly spy on things in general)? Maybe Mr. Verres set it up so he could pass on the information to the Paranormal Division, or at least keep tabs on the party (he was the one who told Tedd to use the door after all). Maybe someone set it up years ago and it still works (but who and why?)*. Or maybe a wizard recently decided to try to learn spells from Tedd and his friends (maybe Smoke, since they at least know about Grace's magic, and might be able to sneak into the house in smoke form). * I don't think it was in this context, but I believe someone on Discord did mention the possibility that Noriko had enchanted the door. Assuming the door's really been in the house all these years, she at least would have the opportunity (but what would her motive be?).

Usually, but not necessarily. It largely depends on if she was going to be heading into a city with skyscrapers, or just hanging out in the suburbs; Kaiju sizes are generally chosen to be big enough to trash buildings and look impressive, but (barring plot requirements or meeting fan expectations) no bigger than necessary (as the smaller the Kaiju the better you can see the details of the buildings it's destroying, and thus the better and more realistic it looks). So a Kaiju that only destroys houses and other buildings no more than a few stories tall will be a lot smaller than one that trashes skyscrapers. (Fun fact: Godzilla's increasing height over the years was in response to the rising height of Tokyo's skyline...)

In the Old Testament, there are actually parts where if you don't go into it assuming God to be omniscient it sounds like it's saying that God made mistakes. For instance, according to Genesis, God caused the Flood because humans had grown so wicked that God regretted ever making them; this sounds to me like God himself considered creating Adam and Eve a mistake. I'm pretty sure there were several other cases of God changing his mind in the Old Testeament, which again seems to me to imply that God is not infallible. ...Personally I think it more likely there is no God, but I think a fallible God would be a lot more believable than a "Perfect" God that for some reason decided to make the world we find ourselves in.

Yay for starburst (or sunburst with hidden circle) background in panel one! Yay for white-circle-with-a-hazy-edge background in panel three! ...Dan wouldn't go there, particularly in a comedy story, but if Parable was made in Japan, there'd be a fairly good chance it would be impossible for Susan to successfully protect Rhoda, and she'd die or be kidnapped in a cutscene.

No one in-story, anyway. Dan, on the other hand, may intend it...

I forgot to mention: in case you were unaware, there are controllers you can use with computers (often using USB) - including ones designed to replicate the look and feel of the controllers for old video game systems (I have one like a SNES controller and one like a Genesis/Megadrive controller). Of course, being on Linux might complicate things, and you'd need to decide for yourself if it was worth the money for the amount of time you'd be likely to spend playing... Well, the fact that they are mutants matters (in that they still need to hide in the shadows), as does the fact that they have fighting skills (they do eventually get caught up in a battle with a villain and his minions, and despite the fact that the Turtles would rather just be having fun, it's clear there will be many more battles to come). But otherwise, yes.

Grace managed to calm Ashley down (and then inadvertently(?) work her up again in a different way), so why is she continuing to transform? Does she have a plan, or is she just goofing around at this point? On a related note, this is clearly relevant to this comic, so I'll put it here instead of the Word of Dan thread: https://twitter.com/elgoonishshive/status/1206659868947554304 Oh, and yay for bubbly background in panel two! (It's pretty well hidden!)

Well, it's been over a year since I saw it, so I don't remember very well... From what I do remember, the first episode was non-stop jokes, so much so it was amazing they managed to fit a plot into it. Many of the jokes in that episode revolved around the fact that you expect the Turtles to be heroes, but instead they're all just irresponsible party-animals (and so is April). I didn't really notice this myself, but I remember someone else reviewing the show talking about how the jokes weren't tailored to any particular character's personality; any of the Turtles could have done any of the jokes. ...All in all, it just felt really shallow; I finished the episode not caring a bit about the characters in it (and I had gone into the episode with an open mind).

Well, if the lock is connected to a "locking" spell, the point would be to cast the spell, not lock the door. Also, it's possible it wasn't locked by a sentient being - it could be something automatic. I even thought it might have been triggered by a spell being used near it, though in that case it seems odd it didn't activate until now.

It was all thanks licensing agent Mark Freedman, who believed the TMNT would make great toys, and Playmates Toys, which agreed but wanted a TMNT cartoon to launch around the same time to help promote the toys. (Of course the team that made the show deserve some credit for creating a show kids wanted to watch.) Well, one thing I overlooked when I said that the original Mirage comic didn't do much that other versions did better is that the original comic was relatively violent. The Turtles weren't afraid to injure their enemies in battle and occasionally even kill them; the villains of course were even more violent. Most of the other incarnations of TMNT have been aimed at kids, so they couldn't get away with that. So if you're looking for Turtles that make proper use of their weapons, the Mirage comic is the best option. Returning to cartoons, besides the good writing and art, the biggest thing going for the 2003 series is that it is the most faithful to the Mirage comic of all the adaptations (though they did have to tone down the violence, and it has plenty of story elements not in the comics). It's also the most serious of the TMNT cartoons (not counting the penultimate season, "Fast Forward"), though it does still have some humor in it. If you like the sort of humor seen in shows like Teen Titans Go, the latest cartoon, "Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" would probably be appealing - but from what little I watched it looks like that's pretty much all it has going for it (which is why I haven't bothered watching any more). (At least, I assume it's Teen Titans Go style; I haven't actually watched any of that. Whatever it is, it's not a type of humor that works for me.) If you're looking for live action, the first movie (from 1990) is probably the best option. It has good writing, acting, etc., and the animatronic suits for the turtles are really impressive. (Secret of the Ooze isn't bad either if you don't mind silliness along the lines of stuff from the cartoon. The fourth movie, "TMNT", is also really good, but it isn't live action. I have nothing good to say about the Michael Bay Turtles movies.) There have also been a number of TMNT video games, usually tying into whatever the current cartoon is. I'm only familiar with the ones from the 80s and 90s; most of them were pretty fun, but I wouldn't say any are in the running for "Best incarnation of TMNT". My favorites are the Arcade Game and the games it inspired (particularly "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: The Manhattan Project" for the NES, which has better controls than the NES adaptation of the Arcade Game, and the most imaginative level design of that set of games).

I believe we discussed this before and the conclusion was that the final seasons didn't air in your area. (Which is not surprising as from what I've heard most places outside the US only got the first few seasons.) Are you asking whether the 1987 cartoon was the best incarnation of TMNT? If not, I'm not sure what you're asking. If so... Well, obviously it's largely a matter of taste, and what you're looking for. The '87 series was what made the Turtles popular, so they clearly did something right, and I certainly have a lot of nostalgia for it; however the writing was never the greatest, and seasons three through seven had many episodes with really bad writing and art (as they focused on quantity over quality). Personally, my favorite version of TMNT was the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures" comics published by Arche comics and loosely based on the '87 show (but going off on it's own direction). I really liked the writing direction, and the main artist for much of its run was really good. Also, relevant to the current discussion, while it didn't have as many transformations as the cartoons, it did take more time to examine what the transformations it did have meant to those transformed, and to show how they coped. The 2003 and 2012 cartoons were pretty good too, with really good writing (most of the time) and consistently good art; if it weren't for nostalgia (and the 2003 cartoon's relative lack of transformations) I'd probably like them better than the '87 cartoon. (Technically, the original "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" comic from Mirage ought to be in the running for best TMNT as well, as it was what spawned everything else; but honestly I think almost everything it did well later versions of the franchise did even better. Meanwhile, I can't comment on the current IDW comics, as I haven't read them yet.)

Actually, I stopped reading Batman comics (and most other American superhero comics) in 2003 because I lost faith in the ability/desire of the writers to tell the sorts of stories I wanted to read. I've heard a bit about what's happened since, but that does not include the current state of Arkham Asylum. I would be shocked if the Asylum or whatever facility replaced it wasn't still a revolving door though; American comic book writers have always liked to re-use villains endlessly and I have no reason to believe that has changed. Back in the 90s it was mostly just a combination of poor security/management at Arkham (the people in charge weren't very competent) and certain villains being skilled at escaping. There was also at least one mass breakout (at the start of Knightfall, Bane broke into Arkham and released all the inmates so they could soften Batman up for him) and during one crisis (No Man's Land) the staff and management just up and left, letting the inmates free on their way out (one would think they would have done time for that themselves, but if so I never read about it). Also, a few villains did manage to routinely avoid being imprisoned in the first place; I don't think Ra's Al Ghul was ever caught during the time I read the comic, and the first (and as far as I know only) time Catwoman was sent to prison in the Post-Crisis timeline, it was a huge event in her comic.

Can you think of any explanation for the "click" that doesn't involve outside forces (or an artifact which will similarly complicate the story)?

Speaking specifically of the 1987-1997 cartoon series, the first episode told about Splinter and the Turtles transformations, then the second had the transformation of Bebop and Rocksteady; I assume those are the seven you refer to. Most following seasons introduced multiple new mutants (some of which started as animals and some of which started as humans); most of these were permanent transformations as well. Along the way April, Irma, and Vernon were all mutated on multiple occasions, always being restored to normal by the end of the episode. Season nine introduced secondary mutations for the Turtles, causing them to turn into Hulk-like monsters temporarily once or twice an episode (as well as Carter, a new character with a similar type of transformation). ...Still, for all that, most episodes prior to season nine didn't have any transformations at all, so your point still stands. (Incidentally, most other incarnations of the franchise had far fewer transformations; the only one I'm familiar with that is comparable is the 2012-2017 cartoon series.)

So is "The game says so." To focus on this NP story for a moment, I've been under the impression that we are not so much seeing a story set in the world of Parable as we are seeing the Susan of a world similar to the main comic playing the game Parable (except either the game has been modded with the faces of people she knows, or the character appearances are just artistic license on Dan's part). As such, "the game says so" is not an out-of-universe explanation from Susan's perspective... Depends on the timeline and what part of his story arc it is. In the 1966 Batman show, he was working with the Police officially. (And the Police were fully lawful good, if a bit over-eager to call in Batman to do their jobs for them.) In the comics, post Crisis On Infinite Earths and pre New 52, he started as a criminal vigilante hunted by the corrupt police (in Year One), but eventually became an unofficial ally of the Police (who were no longer corrupt under Gordon's leadership). In the present-day comics I read in the 90s, the Police officially denied working with him, but everyone in Gotham knew that was a lie. The first Tim Burton Batman followed a similar arc to the post-Crisis Batman minus the police trying to hunt him down. (I don't remember exactly how things were handled in Batman Returns and the Schumacher films, but I know Batman worked with the Police and they didn't show much signs of corruption in those movies.) The Dark Knight Trilogy had Batman as a hunted vigilante, but as far as I remember in that version the police weren't corrupt at all, they just didn't have a good opinion of vigilantes (and of course at the end of the Dark Knight, Batman gave them more reason to hunt him).

My theory is that the click was a lock locking, and that it represents a magical lock activating. Given the timing of the click, I suspect they'll notice it when they try to unshrink Ashley and find that something is keeping the enchantment from being undone.

At which time? When it was first released in theaters? Perhaps; I wouldn't know. In the 80s and 90s, when Dan and those Bunnies around the same age as him (such as myself) were growing up? Well maybe if you're really into transformation there wouldn't be enough, but it wasn't all that uncommon, particularly getting into the 90s. (Even just thinking of Disney animated movies, both the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast came out during that period.) In the 00s and 10s, when the younger Bunnies (and Ashley if we assume the "present" of the comic is in the last decade) were growing up? Not that hard to find, particularly if you broaden your search beyond movies. (Ashley canonically got into transformation largely due to reading the Ranma 1/2 manga after all.) Still, you're right that it makes sense that The Sword in the Stone would be popular among fans of transformation. In fact, part of my surprise was that something so obvious hadn't occurred to me before - particularly as I'm a bit of a fan of transformation myself. But then, despite some of my earliest favorite shows being about transforming machines and robots (Voltron, Transformers, Go-Bots), it was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles that really got me interested in transformation. Since all of the transformations in that were either permanent or assumed to be permanent in-story (until they were undone at the end of the episode), for quite a while my focus was on long term transformations, the sort where the subject has to adapt to and try to accept (or at least learn to live with) a new body. (If Brother Bear had been released in when I was a child, it probably would have become my favorite Disney movie.) I don't think it was until I got into EGS that I really became interested in short-term transformations. EDIT: Actually, thinking on it a bit more, it's probably not so much the case that TMNT got me interested in transformation so much as it made me realize how much fictional transformations could resonate with me; if I never saw TMNT something else probably would have done it for me, maybe X-Men or certain episodes of Gargoyles. However, I'm pretty sure it's because of the type of transformation that it resonated; as someone whose body image diverged from what I saw in the mirror as I grew older, I identified with characters that were changed into forms they never would have chosen with little hope of a quick fix. The transformations in The Sword in the Stone, where there was never any suggestion Arthur was in danger of needing to live as one of the animals Merlin turned him into, just weren't as relevant to me. Interestingly, I was introduced to Spaceballs when I was young, and think it's a great movie. Admittedly, some of the humor is a little crude for my tastes, but I still consider it among the funniest movies I've seen (mind you, I haven't seen many other Mel Brooks movies, so I'm not in a position to compare it to his other works; one of these days I should probably track some of them down). I also enjoy the story for it's own sake; while a little silly I think it really does work well as a stand-alone fantasy-in-space adventure. Galaxy Quest on the other hand I saw as an adult, and it didn't work for me. None of the jokes struck me as funny, and I didn't like the plot. (Also, I felt at the time that the story relied a bit too much on the audience knowing the basics of Star Trek; looking back I probably wasn't giving the movie, or the movie-viewing-public in general, enough credit.) Then again, it's possible I was just too into Star Trek at the time, and too sensitive about it, to be able to enjoy a parody of it.

I prefer "hippopotamuseses".

I probably saw it before I was 10, but it didn't make much of an impression on me the first time. The first time I distinctly remember watching it was when I was 12, and it sticks in my head more for the circumstances under which I was watching it than from the movie itself (I was visiting my Grandparents for a week without my parents, the first time I'd been away from my parents for so long, and one of the first things I did after getting there was watch that movie with my aunt and a few other relatives). While I don't dislike it, it's never been among my favorite Disney movies, and I was actually mildly surprised at first when Dan and others were talking about loving so much it back when it came up in the comic. (Upon further consideration, it shouldn't have been a surprise; pretty much everything that isn't horribly made and some things that are horribly made are someone's favorite.)

So I get that if you compared a map of the universe at two different points in time, any change in position of galaxies between them would be unrelated to the expansion of the universe, only the scale would change; so from that point of view the expansion is not causing the galaxies to move. However, if you pick a specific galaxy (or some planet in that galaxy) as your reference point, the distance to most other galaxies (or at least galaxies in other galactic clusters) is increasing over time, and I still don't quite get why that increase in distance shouldn't be called "movement".

So you're saying there is a difference between objects getting further apart and "moving away from one another"? I was under the impression that any change in distance between two objects could be considered "movement".

Exactly. Most events in most video games take place at the speed of plot. How much gameplay time or how many day-night cycles have passed is irrelevant, events happen when all the pieces are in place for them to occur the way they were meant to occur. Personally, I think of it as a somewhat confusing version of the concept of time being relative. If a crisis starts, you leave and do a bunch of other things, then return to find the crisis still in progress, it doesn't mean everyone was waiting for you, it means as far as the people involved in the crisis are concerned little or no time passed while you were away.