Goodbye Stan Lee

It was not so long ago that I wrote a blog about the death of Harold Ramis… Good lord that was almost 5 years ago… Okay, it has been a while since I last spoke on the topic of death especially as it relates to famous individuals who have had a real impact on me creatively and helped to shape who I am, even if they never met me.

This week Stan Lee, co-creator of many of Marvel Comics’ greatest heroes, and perhaps one of the greatest public icons for science fiction and fantasy ever, passed away.  He remained a living mascot and spokesman for the glory and wonder of imagination for decades.  He was, by all accounts I could find, a good person who legitimately hoped that he had made a difference in the lives of people by telling his silly stories.

He lived to be 95 years old, a revered almost canonized figure of secular values.  “With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility” is such an important lesson that I don’t even think the profundity of it completely lands anymore.

I have been reading comics, watching cartoons, and reading books about his creations long before they took off and became the biggest entertainment business in the world.  Stan’s creations, along with those of Jack Kirby, Bill Finger, and the other legions of creators from that rare era where creativity first started exploding in the way it did, into an age of larger than life characters, those creations have impacted me greatly.

"I used to be embarrassed because I was just a comic-book writer while other people were building bridges or going on to medical careers. And then I began to realize: entertainment is one of the most important things in people’s lives. Without it they might go off the deep end. I feel that if you’re able to entertain people, you’re doing a good thing." – Stan Lee, The Washington Post

I owe Lee a tremendous debt.  I hope that I can be, directly or indirectly, as much of an impact on someone else, as he had on me.  There will never be another Stan Lee, the world is just not set out that way anymore.  But maybe the one we were lucky enough to get was enough.

There are other celebrities that have passed away that had an impact on me that I have not spoken on, and I don’t always want to.  That some creatives hit me in a way that I process on my own because I don’t really know what to say.  But I think that Stan Lee has to be one of the ones I comment on.  It felt okay to.

He lived a long life, and his stories will live longer still.  To quote comic author Neil Gaiman, “Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and adventures are the shadow truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes and forgotten.”

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Why the "Venom" Movie Trailer is Bad

            Another new trailer dropped for the “Venom” movie has dropped.  And the half second of Venom being Venom looks… like Venom.

The first trailer (which was admittedly worse) just showed Tom Hardy flipping out and precisely none of the Venom character fully realized.  It was crap.  That being said it left its audience with some hope that Venom would be cool once they worked everything out.  I have no idea what the line of reasoning was there.  Probably, “we haven’t worked out any of the visual effects yet,” but that is all speculation.

This latest trailer dispels 90% of those hopes.  While I think that the final image of the character LOOKS fine… The rest is rather garbage.  The CGI tendrils look shoddy at best, the liquid effects are stiff, and most of what makes the character interesting (and oh boy am I being charitable with the word “interesting”) those traits are gone.

            Rather than talk about the trailer exclusively, let’s talk a bit about the character of Venom, and why it is inexplicable that he is as popular as he is.

Venom: The Character

            Venom was created by Todd MacFarlane during his tenure on Spiderman, years prior to his creation of the character “SPAWN” and completely unveiling how much of an asshole he really was, this was done along with writer David Michelinie, who as far as I can tell is a perfectly nice guy.

            The basic premise of Venom is that Eddie Brock, a coworker and rival of Peter Parker at the Daily Bugle comes in contact with an alien creature called a symbiote, which was used and then cast off by Spider-Man when he stimulated the hero to be more and more violent.

The symbiote bonds with a host granting a telepathic link between them and granting the host a slew of powers.  This gestalt being needs to ingest certain proteins to remain functional and thrives off of negative emotions which acts as a drug.  Eating people is a good source for both of these things.

            Initially, Eddie and the Symbiote came together and targeted Spider-Man because he was the enemy of both Eddie (via Peter) and the alien (via not wanting to bond with it thru greater acts of violence).  Eddie, not realizing the emotional high of violence and the desire to “Eat Spider-Man’s brains” were coming from the symbiote allowed himself to be taken in by it.

            Being seduced to give into your petty bullshit by a demonic blackness that lives inside of you is pretty good symbolism.

Venom: The Appeal

            Venom is a fascinating case in that he is a garbage human being.  Eddie Brock is a muscle head and bully who blames others for his short comings and sees the success of others like Peter Parker as not just an affront to his masculinity, but a cheat.  Thinking something to the effect of, “Peter can’t possibly be better at his job than I am, he must be sabotaging me”.

            What is more, Eddie is uncreative.  His whole plan for fighting Spiderman is to mimic the look, behavior, and powers of his enemy, BUT EVIL!  That is lame.  In the long tradition of villains being a dark reflection of the hero (Joker, Red Skull, Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom) Venom is a shell.  He hates Spider-Man not because of a philosophical reason, he hates him out of pure petty ego and… gluttony on the part of the alien monster.  His look is JUST a dark reflection, he himself is not a reflection of anything on a conscious level.  And for the reader, Eddie is the jock, Peter is the nerd.  Wow.  Such a dichotomy. 

That is lame.  Venom is lame.

            Why the hell is this character so popular?  I am sure it has something to do with the same surface level appreciation that allows “Ghost Rider” to keep appearing on t-shirts, but really the concept KIND OF works.

There are a lot of shirts of this guy.  LOTS!

            If you take for granted that Eddie Brock is an uncreative, stupid, petty, insecure, and intemperate dipshit then you can kind of see a good metaphor for the suit.  He is a petulant asshole who dresses up like an evil version of Spiderman to act out against people who haven’t done anything to him, but he never the less sees as a threat to his masculinity.  He is physically what every loser “Men’s Rights Activist” with a superhero web handle is online.

            It rings deeper still.  That the violence is a drug that fills in his emotional weakness, and that the monster fills the emptiness in him, he is not lonely or judged as a thug and fool by people he looks down on as not being his macho ideal.  The monster goo doesn’t judge him, it loves him for who he is.  As a violent jerkoff.

Venom: The Adaptation

            So, why does this movie look like shit?  I mean, aside from the bad special effects I am hoping they will fix in post.  Because in this movie Eddie isn’t a brain-dead asshole, he is a crusading reporter fighting for the little guy.  What is more, there is no Spider-Man to be seen.  The core concepts of the character are gone, and the motivation to look the way he does is gone.  What is left?

I have already seen "Wassup"parodies in memes

            The image of Venom presented is that of a big monster, and a guy bonding with that monster to fight for what’s “right” except that isn’t true either.  We are now in a situation where the monster is just compelling a good guy to do bad and the good guy is trying to aim the monster to do “good”.  Eddie isn’t (ostensibly) slaved to any sort of drive like loneliness or drug abuse that the symbiote can help with, he is not getting anything out of interacting with the monster except powers that are completely out of his control, “Why did we do that” is a line in the trailer.  Eddie is just a victim of circumstance and anyone could wear the monster skin, which potato peels off another slice of characterization.

            You have, with this movie, taken the Venom out of Venom on all but the MOST superficial level.  You don’t need those elements by the way.  The idea of some guy getting infected with a lovecraftian ooze monster that gives him a sense of belonging and emotional fullness while at the same time compelling him to hurt people is… Basically the mythology of werewolves where you get down to it.  Or for a recent example, “Split”.

            As a merging of elements from Spiderman’s life as a superhero and his life as a reporter, Venom served as a potentially great badguy.  Much like Lizard, Doctor Octopus, and Green Goblin, Venom was a person who had a personal report with Peter beyond being a bank robber with some gadgets or an animal theme.  Venom could become greyer in the black and white morality of the world.  People can change, Eddie could change.

Venom: The Conclusion

            All they have done by calling this movie “Venom” is invite unflattering comparisons.  But maybe I am being too harsh.  Tom Hardy is a good actor who has to put some thought into the parts he chooses to play.  What other instance can you think of where a popular actor did a superhero movie divorced from its core mythology while bearing (at best) a superficial resemblance to the character?

Oh... Yeah...

_____________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter (click that link to follow me), Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Captain America's Leadership

I have talked about previously the difficulty in writing complex legal questions for comics.  The idea of applying laws and philosophical conundrums to a world of super powered beings can break down really quickly, if magic, super science, ancient myth, and Hell can all be demonstrated to exist and multiple handheld objects have the power to destroy the universe the idea of a superhero registry sound kind of silly.  See my blog about the issues I had with Marvel’s “Civil War” comic for more on that.  (I should get around to writing a review of the movie at some point, I liked it, but kind of have more to say.)

Right now, I want to talk about an issue I have with Captain America.  Not the inexplicable Nazism that is in the foreground of the comics, but the issue of Leadership.  Captain Rodger’s skill as a leader is an ability we as readers are often told about, but we are rarely shown this ability, and this is for the simple reason that it is hard to show someone being a leader.  It is hard for writers to show leadership beyond characters yelling for other characters to do obvious things.

They have solved this leadership chestnut in the movies by-the-by, Cap has plans, he leads by example, and he is able to have mature forthright discussions with his friends, allies, protégés, and normal people in such a way that feels natural and reassuring.  The sort of thing you would want from a leader that is both from a bygone era (WWII) and yet still possess youthful energy and takes an outsider perspective on things (he was frozen).

My issue with Cap in the comics (and other leadership characters) can be summed up in this image.

I don't know who wrote this comic.
I do not know who made this inspirational poster.
I would link them if I did.  Even though I am calling them shit.

In this image, Captain America is telling Thor, the 1,000-year-old warrior prince, mightiest warrior from an interstellar race of warriors, champion and veteran of 1,000's of fights and battles to put out a fire using his most notorious ability as a storm god.  Captain America is pointless here and this does not show leadership, it shows him as a micromanager of his colleges.

Leadership is not telling people the bloody obvious in an authoritative tone.

Leadership is not having a striking profile.

This is not Charisma.

This is Lame.

The problem I have with that is that it short shifts the others on the team.  Iron Man has led his own team, so does Thor, so has Hawkeye, so has Widow, Wasp, Black Panther.  And they all have their own style.

Tony has a sit down with people and discusses issues, like management of a business would.  Widow mostly keeps her teammates in the dark about her thought process and instead internalizes their behaviors so that she knows how they will react when she acts.  Wasp is personable and coaxes people’s best out of them via encouragement and friendship.  Leadership is a complex concept.  Let me show you an instance of Captain America being a charismatic leader.

 

Click to enlarge.  Make a small effort to infer what is going on from context.

In this scene, he has been physically dominated by the deranged super soldier codenamed: Nuke (he is a character in the “Jessica Jones” Netflix series, but without the face tattoo).  Captain America appeals to the deeper philosophical underpinnings that define both he and Nuke’s roles in the world.  He identifies the illogical break from the nobler intentions that has led Nuke astray, and explains to him why he has been duped and why he should calm down and rethink his course.

It is not a perfect scene.  I actually wanted to juxtapose this with Wonder Woman being a great teacher/leader that I saw elsewhere but since her movie is out googling that character results in nothing but a torrent of inspirational stills from the movie coupled with people saying some variation of “best thing ever” which is fucking meaningless for this discussion.

My point is, being a leader has less to do with Captain America’s tactical acumen.  The scene in “Avengers” where he orders the police to better positions to fight off the alien invasion is cute, but a better illustration of who he is and what he does can be found in “Captain America: Civil War” when he talks to Scarlet Witch after Crossbones suicide bombs innocent people and they inexplicably blame her for it.  It is cool, reassuring, and touches on what she needs to hear at that moment.  Much like Hawkeye’s mini speech in “Avengers: Age of Ultron” or Yondu saying nearly anything in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2”.

I don’t know what else to say.  Maybe this, don’t write leader characters as the guy who just tells everyone else what to do.  Write leaders as people who get the best out of those they work with.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Disney Blogs, Day Zero "Gargoyles"

            I have decided to do another 30-day movie blog to challenge myself to greater levels of output for this year.  (The last one I did is here; it is about video games).  This blog challenge will be about Disney movies.  This was somewhat inspired by the Nostalgia Critics “Disneycember” video blog in which he watched many… many-many movies over the course of multiple Decembers.  A luxury someone who reviews films for a living can justify and that I envy.

            After looking thru a wide swath of 30-day blog suggestions I realized that the cult of Disney has a bad habit of being overly positive “What’s your Favorite (Blank)” is too common a prompt.  They also have far too much an emphasis on asinine details like “Prettiest Eyes/Dress/Hair” … WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WRITE ABOUT THAT?  It is one thing to emphasize character design or art design (“Hercules” is different than “Oliver and Company”) but to go to the level of picking out favorite eyes is stupid.

This is a tumblr joke.  It would have to be.  Because even though it would sell and make money.
Disney does not encourage this kind of fandom.

            Anyway!  I eventually compiled a list that stretches things bit far in some areas, unlike with video games I can’t focus on game mechanics or systems so I have to focus more on characters, settings, and the emotional resonance of certain scenes.  Which is fine, I hammered out a list and it will do.

            That all being said I did not have a full grasp on the brobdingnagian amounts of stuff Disney has made over the years.  I have seen only a small portion of it all, especially when you include the animated series and direct to video garbage they were throwing out to the public for a quick buck in the 90’s.  So I have to put some logical limitations on what I am looking at because some things would be more than a little heavy with potential candidates.

            So here are my limitations:

1)     None of the animated series Disney produced; this one is difficult as it means I can’t give any sort of “Best” title to “Darkwing Duck”.

2)     None of the direct to video stuff, so “Return of Jafar” is out of the running for my nostalgia.

3)     This is the biggest one: None of the Live action stuff.

            Disney produces a shocking amount of live action material and me wanting to put “Sky High” as the most underrated movie from Disney is really not fitting in with all the animated musicals that a “Disney Blog Challenge” evokes in a reader’s mind.  And really, that also means I don’t have to worry about Muppets, Marvel, or Pirates either.  Which I think is for the best.

            Now, since I have established I will not be talking about animated series for the month of December, let me talk about one now, in the month of November.

            “Gargoyles” is perhaps the best thing ever made by Disney.  It miraculously/stupidly has not been replicated since its initial creative run in spite of it being an expansive universe that blends science, magic, and myth into a perfect adventure setting.  It had complex characters who developed over time and possessed motivations like bigotry and self-loathing that are rarely seen in television that is ostensibly aimed at children.  I consider it one of the best animated programs ever and one of my favorite shows that jumps to mind when I am asked.

I wonder how many people have used these sequences of the gargoyles breaking out and set it to Evanescence?

            While I wonder how anyone could get their hands on it for viewing these days I do think that if such a thing were possible it definitely should be a priority for anyone who likes Disney, animated shows, or the superhero genre.

“Gargoyles” uses many of the tropes associated with Marvel Comics’ properties—like a cadre of recurring villains, New York being the primary setting, fantastic powers being used for crime fighting, and a “will they or won’t they” romance subplot—so many of these tropes show up that I am kind of shocked they didn’t try to just tie it into Marvel comics after the merger, it would fit right in.

            The Show also has a legendary voice cast with Johnathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, Keith David, and Ed Asner among many others.

Watch the show.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Batman, Wonder Woman, and Identity Politics

I thought about this a while back when people were complaining about the casting of Scarlett Johansson as a traditionally Japanese character in the upcoming "Ghost in the Shell" movie and flashing back to Idris Elba being cast as Heimdall in "Thor".

That the Norse gods should be a definitively thought of as a white group of characters, seeing as the Vikings were in fact white.  This argument ignores that the Vikings also traveled the world as sailors and discovered many different races and could have acknowledged this diversity in their myths.  This also ignores the fact that the myths were collected 200 years after they stopped being actively practiced, this collecting was done by a white person in a predominantly white world and... the "races" of the gods become a little more fluid as the original iconography of Vikings in the pre-Christian academic world is not very clear.

Heindall as he might have once been perceived.

And as the fictional character is now perceived.

I would also see online people asking, "What about a white/Caucasian Luke Cage? Or Black Panther?" saying that you could color blind cast in both directions.  Ignoring for a second that taking one of the few recognizable minority characters and casting them with a white actor is in no way equivalent to casting a minority into one of the many-many roles that has been traditionally considered white, my response was that being black is a big part of those character's identities.

Luke Cage is blacker than the ace of clubs and Black Panther was designed to be a distinctly Black character, with a mythology that is all about being a mysterious and powerful head of an African nation that itself is cloaked in mystery.  Most (if not all) white heroes of the Gold and Silver Ages of comics are white because that was the default at the time they were created.  The books were marketed to white children and teens and the characters were white "role models".  Race as it informs or relates to their characters is nil and the number of times the subject is approached it is very lightly touched and then moved away from (mostly because of an industry wide “mums the word” policy of not discussing social issues).

So I asked myself what character would be the definitive WHITE character because you could easily see how their position in their world is informed by and tied to their being white.

Mr. Sunshine and Happy Times himself.

It's Batman.

Bruce Wayne is old money New England elite.  His family has a crest, they have an estate, and they have been part of Gotham (New York) high society for decades or centuries and can trace themselves back further.  The KNIGHT part of Dark Knight seems to very much infer the idea of old time very wealthy royalty using their money and means to protect the people of their Barony/County/Kingdom.  Bruce is the Prince of Gotham and Batman is his suit of armor both literally and figuratively.

Now other cultures have crests and shields.  They have totems that can be utilized to strike fear into the hearts of their foes.  They have family lines... BUT! We live in a culture in which the idea of a wealthy landed elite family THAT WAS BLACK did not, and still for the most part does not exist.  If Thomas and Martha Wayne were seen as upper crust high society people descended from well to do old money and they managed to navigate the racial politics of their day to plant Bruce as the wealthy playboy and Inquirer target… well, that just doesn’t exist in Americana.  It would ring false to the audience.  So, with that in mind, Batman is very "white".

In fact, we already know what you would have to alter and tweak to make a black Batman work, I have already mentioned him.  Black Panther is basically Black Batman.  The totem, the royal trappings, the legacy of wealth, and being the best as a service to one’s city/nation.  Also the reliance on gadgets and martial arts but also having frequent elements of mysticism present in the background.  That is how you would have to change the character to make the premise work, by so fundamentally changing the setting that the idea of changing the race becomes a non-issue.

"I don't see the resemblance." -Moron.

Superman could be any race (you can tell because they have made 10,000 knock-offs of the character and many of them are of different skin tones).  Martian Man Hunter frequently is multiple races and different authors have expressed the Martian race as being gender fluid as well, because of their shapeshifting (and I personally see that as the better interpretation, that when “he” refers to his “wife” who died on Mars, “he” is using terminology that makes the most sense to those “he” is talking to).

Wonder Woman, Flash, the various Green Lanterns (though they really need more women from earth to be considered diverse to audiences), and nearly everyone else on the Justice League could be a different race. Mr. Terrific was a white guy in the Golden Age of comics and Michael Holt, the character that carries the mantel now is a black guy (and atheist which is its own sort of minority in the Comics industry).

The NEXT person to hold a particular mantel (including that of Batman) could be any race without question, and many characters do have minority characters taking on the role of following the legacy of a character (Rhodes served as Iron Man, Sam Wilson is currently a Captain America, Miles Morales is a Spider-Man… Notice how much of this is taking place under the MARVEL header?  They are better at this).  BUT, Bruce Wayne-Batman makes the most sense in the context of Americana as a White person.

Let me take this a step further with discussion of another character that I imagine people would insist is “white” or “Mediterranean” depending on how particular you are of ethnic and racial identity.  You know, Wonder Woman really doesn't have to be Greek.

I think I might be the only person who thinks that the trailer to her upcoming movie looks awful too.

Like the Vikings, the Greeks were sea fairing and were aware of lots of races and cultures outside of their own. They would have seen black people.

The idea that Wonder Woman’s homeland of Themyscira is some extra dimensional utopia that is nothing but white women is also really fucking racist.  Like on its face.  Writing tip, if you ever make a Utopian society in fiction and go out of your way to point out that everybody is the same racial group, it is explicitly racist.  Having Themyscira be a multi-ethnic/racial matriarchal utopia that follows the principles and religious guidance of a very modern interpretation of the Greek Gods... not racist.  It is still SEXIST, no question there, but that is kind of the whole point/conflict of the character of Wonder Woman when she acts as a liaison between Themyscira and Earth.

I would also draw comparisons to Asgard and Marvel’s mythical Asian city of K'un-L'un (a popular destination for the superhero Iron Fist).  Certain earth cultures saw advanced and mythical civilizations and chose to emulate them creating the distorted myths that we know today in our world.  So, rather than the Marvel comics being inspired by the myths and everyone in real life bitching about how the comics and movies do not follow the myths, instead the myths were inspired by the Marvel civilization.  In that case Wonder Woman, Thor, or any other mythical figure could look however the comic artist wanted to draw them (African, Chinese, Hindi, Samoan, or European) and the "real" myths and history could be seen as the white washed versions.

Essentially in the DC universe Greek civilization emulated the Amazons (who are actually very diverse and “wise” … though still somewhat big into misandry) rather than the Amazons following and emulating Greek society. When the Greeks copied the history and myths of the Amazons they just made everyone Greek, and made Hercules the good guy of the story and played up the "masculinity = Good" angle (in the Wonder Woman comics Hercules was a villain).  You could even see this as a form of… It is white washing, but it is also male-ifying things… Penis-Washing?

Not to mention all the typical weird stuff going on in comics from the era of her creation that got thrown in right along side the strange sexual imagery.

This sort of Greek re-writing of Amazon myth would explain the disdain Themyscira has for Earth, and why the Amazons did not interact with "Man World" for thousands of years.  The Amazons did not like being taken out of their own stories and having their worldview coopted and corrupted to a Patriarchal and Misogynistic Greek culture which saw women as inferior.

“Women are the weaker sex… being born a woman is a divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal.” -Socrates

“The Male is by Nature superior and the female inferior and one rules and the other is ruled… This inequality is permanent because the woman’s deliberative faculty is without authority, like a child’s.” -Aristotle

Nothing going on here.

            It is easy to see how the Amazons might have interacted with Ancient Greece, taught them some things about the gods, art, and their history, and then left because they saw it getting appropriated.

            Of course this is all the diegetic explanation of things.  All of this is fiction.  Made by people to sell books and toys to children.  Batman was not made to push an Alt-Right dream of a world protected by its white betters, but I would point out that Wonder Woman was specifically designed to be a female icon in the genre and is rife with text of female empowerment, and subtext of bondage and sexual politics.

All of this is up to the authors and readers to decide what they want.  But the idea that a fictional character must be a certain way should be looked at in the context of what that character is and where they exist in their world.  Whether race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or politics makes sense for that character should inform and be informed by who and what the character is.  Otherwise it is all just weird.

There is a great big multiverse out there, waiting to grow with weirdness though.  So whose to stop us?

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

My thoughts on "Avengers: Age of Ultron"

            A whole that is not as great as the sum of its parts.  Really ironic all things considered.  Much like my issues with “The Amazing Spiderman 2” this seems more like multiple scripts put together as there is stuff that just does not have to be in there.  Since this is one of the most watched movies of the year and came out months and months ago I feel comfortable talking about numerous issues at once and will be moving between them freely, kind of like how I reviewed “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (which also had a robot apocalypse as its plot… and it’s sequel will have an Apocalypse apocalypse).  There are SPOILERS thru out this review and that cannot be avoided.

            Why is Ultron Magneto?  In the comics Magneto has three children: a green haired woman with magnet powers, Polaris; a silver haired guy with super speed, Quicksilver (Pietro); and a red headed magic user, Scarlet Witch (Wanda).  In the comics all of Magneto’s children realize that he is dangerous and join superhero teams to thwart him, Polaris joins the X-Men while Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch join the Avengers.  In this movie, Ultron talks frequently about evolution, humanity’s need to change, and talks to Wanda and Pietro in terms of being rejected.  Their ultimately turning against Ultron makes him act very hurt and betrayed.  There is also a scene of Ultron using magnetic powers to pull and toss Iron Man.  I feel like this script would have worked better with Magneto in the role of Ultron… Or they should have done away with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

            Wanda and Pietro are kind of useless to the narrative.  They are colorful goons for Ultron and they ultimately turn to heroes when they see how he wants to kill everyone, but their role in the story could have just been played by Vision.  Have Ultron create Vision after escaping Avenger’s tower and he fills the same role in the story as Wanda, using the mind gem to drive all the Avenger’s into strange VISIONS of their own nightmares and turning the Hulk into a rampaging monster in Africa.  As the movie continues have Vision be defeated by Thor, have Ultron carry him off and put him into that pod, the movie could then continue mostly unchanged, as the Avengers capture the pod, download Jarvis into it, rewriting Vision as a good guy.

            Thor’s side quest to be shirtless in a pool of water was a waste of screen time, by having him fight Vision or Ultron in the middle of the movie (like I talked about in the previous paragraph) he would have been put to better use.

Though Marvel might have it in his contract that they must have a shirtless scene with Hemsworth.  The man lives on nothing but white rice and lean chicken for months at a time, have to make the most of that.

            While having Wanda and Pietro in the movie was unnecessary but if they had been taken out we would have missed out on the best scene in the movie, Hawkeye being the team’s dad figure.

            “Hey, look at me.  It’s your fault, it’s everyone’s fault, who cares?  Are you up for this?  Are you?  Look, I need to know because the city is flying.  Okay?  The city is flying, we are fighting an army of robots, and I have a bow and arrow. None of this makes sense.  But, I am going back out there because it is my job. Okay?  And I can’t do my job and baby sit.  It doesn’t matter what you did or where you were.  If you go out there,you fight.  And you fight to kill.  Stay in here, you’re good.  I’ll send your brother to come find you.  But if you step out that door, you are an Avenger.”

            I can picture in my mind a younger version of Clint giving a similar speech to a younger version of Black Widow, saying instead, “You step out that door you are a SHIELD agent.”  And contextualizing that speech and what we know about how he has a family you can picture him using he skills as a field operative as a dad, and his skills as a dad in the field.  He greatly deepens his character.

            Tony Stark is TOTALLY CORRECT in trying to create Ultron. Captain America is ENTIRELY WRONG in trying to stop it.  Earth is under threat of alien invasion at all times and since Thor refuses to let Earth utilize the Tesseract (Cosmic Cube) to build ray guns and other super weapons, Earth will be at a hopeless disadvantage should a full fleet of alien ships come and attack.  Constructing a legion of robots that are capable of repelling such an eminent threat should be a top priority before it shows up again, waiting until the attack comes is not a winning strategy, and relying entirely on the Avengers to protect Earth is a foolish decision on the part of Captain America, and one he should in no way be in charge of making as he is a tactical genius, not a strategic one.  We cannot count on Thor and Asgard to protect us from someone like Ronan or Malakith, who were only defeated by the slimmest of margins.

            Vision is awesome.  I like his look, I like Paul Bettany in the role, I like how Jarvis became Vision, the only problem I have with Vision is that he was not in more of the movie.

            This movie is too long, especially the action scenes which often go on for such a long time that I start to get bored by them, which is a shame because they are all so good, that had they each been the final highlight fight of another movie I feel they would have worked better.  By the time we get to the flying city I am so tired from all the action that the whole final act drags for me.

            Unfortunately Hulk and Black Widow’s romantic subplot does not get enough time.  I saw it in the first movie more than most people (for some reason people thought Hawkeye and her, but I never saw that, do those people just not have friends of the opposite sex?)  And since they are both living weapons as a result of outside forces compelling them to become such monstrous things I think they make a good match to one another narratively.

            I would also like to point out and underline: TONY DID NOT CREATE ULTRON.  He and Bruce were not in the room when the machine switched itself on.  The OS they were using to create Ultron was taken from Loki’s scepter, which in turn was (most likely) created by Thanos.  Thanos is in love with Death, and the idea that the software he used for the scepter would be an artificial intelligence bent on omnicide makes sense.  Sure Ultron was the name of the robot legion Tony wanted to create, but it is pretty clear Thanos was the guy who got the ball rolling on all of this.  Just like you can’t blame Hulk for being mind-controlled to rampage, you can’t blame Tony because his robots were high jacked by a killer alien computer (especially because he left it turned off).

For some reason this has become the most used image of Ultron afterword.
Which just looks like he is about to give the audience the finger.

            Pepper Potts and Jane Foster should have made guest appearances in this movie.  What is the problem?  The script is already bloated but you don’t have time for existing valuable supporting characters?  Just drop hints that they might get their own powers because in the comics they both end up doing just that.  Pepper gets a suit of armor and becomes Rescue, a super hero who specializes in fighting natural disasters.  Jane gains the ability to wield Mjolnir and becomes THOR, while Thor becomes Odinson… Which is stupid on several levels as his name is Thor, but whatever.

            As I mentioned in my Predictions for future Marvel movies, I do not think Vision destroyed Ultron, and instead Ultron is trapped in the Mind Gem on Vision’s forehead.

Score: 6/10

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Marvel's "Civil War" (the comic)

This movie trailer just dropped.  It looks great.  I am going to talk about the god awful comic that inspired the movie.

I have a theory, the reason most smart people in the Marvel Universe (and comics in general) tend to be scientists rather than lawyers is simply because in comics you can make up bull shit gibberish and call it science, you can't make up law and everyone just say, “Yeah, I can see how that might pass and spike controversy”.

Unfortunately Marvel Comics back in 2006 decided to base one of the biggest events of the decade around a legal misunderstanding… and it made not a lick of sense.  After a number of incidents relating to superhero misconduct (for instance, the Hulk destroyed a good amount of Las Vegas while being mind-controlled, and Star Fox date raped a woman and fled the country) the last straw came in a very stupid way.

A group of young superheroes called The New Warriors found a group of escaped super villains hiding out in Connecticut.  What they should have done is kept their distance, formulate a plan, and call for back up if they needed it, one problem though, the team was being followed around by a camera crew because they were part of a superhero reality show akin to “Cops”.  The bad guys saw them, a fight broke out, and one of the villains, named Nitro, caused an explosion that killed hundreds of people including dozens of children.  Several of the heroes died as well.  This was the 9/11 of the Marvel universe and prompted a change in how the government interacted with the heroes.  All the superheroes now needed a license to use their powers.

Strangely the actual bad guy, Nitro.  He is barely mentioned in the rest of the event.

Captain America saw this licensing issue as unethical and took to leading a group of superheroes who did not want to register as a freelance group of heroes, he gave them all new cover identities and they continued to fight crime.  Iron Man was on the other side, since he was a former Secretary of Defense (yes, Tony Stark) Iron Man was made head of the licensed heroes and given the directive to stop vigilantes from operating, either they registered with the government (which means they would receive training, pay, benefits, and have to take orders) or they would be jailed until they registered.

As I previously mentioned writing law in comics is difficult and in this instance it was especially bad because at no point did they print the literal text of “The Registration Act”.  So no one could actually point to the law and say what it was the argument was about.  No soft language that would require review.  The registration act was unwritten not because it was complicated, but because Marvel's editors did not know how you would word a law to make such a disagreement possible.  There is an issue of She-Hulk that explains her legal justifications for why Registration is correct (there is no corresponding argument from another super-lawyer because it would require the creative staff to really hammer out a legal fiction that could illustrate the point).

I actually find this to be a sad state of affairs because Dan Slott wrote excellent super-cases for his run on She-Hulk (can a ghost testify against his murderer, can Starfox be tried for rape because his love powers can manipulate a woman's will, can a supervillain sue a hero for excessive force, what constitutes cruel-and-unusual punishment for a super-max prison?)  All of those topics were really cool to explore... And unfortunately no one else can really write that kind of stuff.  (Really, Dan Slott’s writing on that comic went into the toilet toward the end too, so maybe even he couldn’t have fixed this).

There is a massive argument going on that has no foundation on either side.  So instead we have to infer what the argument was about from each side’s behavior… AND HO-BOY everybody acted out of character

 

Whose side are you on?
I don't know.  What the hell is this all about?

The single biggest issue I have with the story is that both Iron Man and Captain America seem to be going against what I think their positions would be.  Both suffer tons of characterization, and in the case of Iron Man (outside the main "Civil War" book) suffers outright character assassination.

1) Captain America has had a teen sidekick die and has advocated against other teen heroes namely the Young Avengers.  Captain America is always the first hero to advocate against new people getting into the life of a superhero, and that makes sense he was frozen and lost his entire life to being a hero, why would he want someone to make that same sacrifice?  He is also critical of heroes who use too much force or use being a hero as an excuse to have fun or seek thrills.  The idea of heroes needing to receive training and licenses to operate makes a lot of sense.  But he is against it, and during the series he employs the Young Avengers (a group of teen heroes he told to stop operating) to help his cause, all of which makes him a massive hypocrite.  And then the Punisher shows up having murdered two super criminals and is immediately teamed up with by Captain America.  Hypocrite.

Also, Spider-man getting this beaten up by the two chuckle heads that Punisher killed is kind of disrespectful to Peter Parker as a character.

2) Cap's identity is known to the government, he lives in the helicarrier when he is not in Avengers tower or mansion, he gets a pay check from the government to go on missions for them and has a tremendously flexible work load that allows him to apply his skills and abilities to those missions he sees needing his abilities and his moral compass.  If anything he should be advocating that other superheroes receive the same support from the government to help them escape unfair persecution (“Spiderman, Hero or Menace” for instance).

3) Cap has used his legal status as "Champion" to form his own team of Avengers in the past so he is clearly not above using the rules.  This is more an extension of #2.  SHIELD was initially against or resistant to a new Avengers team forming because of how a previous team had ended (Scarlet Witch went crazy, killed 4 team members, and nearly destroyed all of New York), Captain America was so adamant about wanting to create a new team that he invoked his special status with the government to overrule all objections and create a new team.  Does he feel those rules are a detriment?  If so he gives no indication of such.

4) Iron Man is also acting out of character so let’s talk about him some.  Tony has been managing from behind the scenes the superhero community for years.  He formed the group called the Illuminati along with leaders from other super teams to help coordinate their efforts; Charles Xavier, Mr. Fantastic, Namor, Black Bolt, Doctor Strange, and Iron Man have all been taking the lead without the government’s oversight.  I think that these characters ESPECIALLY TONY, would not want to relinquish this control to the government which has shown itself to be run by idiots on more than one occasion.

Poor Charles Xavier, it is hard to do an action shot when you're an 80 year old man in a wheel chair and your powers are completely imperceptible.  He looks like he is having an ice cream headache.

5) Tony has gone to war with the Government to keep his armor technology from being misused.  The entire reason he became Secretary of Defense was to end the perceived abuse of his inventions.  So now he is going to sign up to give the government control of literal super geniuses?  Even if the government had no access to his armor, there are other super inventors whose inventions they could misuse.

6) Let’s get back to Cap.  Steve has his team give up their true identities and live under assumed names with no end to the war in sight, claiming that living under an assumed name is temporary, and the fact that these people cannot go home till their insurrection is over should be seen as a necessary and noble sacrifice.  Tony does not require that, if you register your identity doesn't have to be public and you get a paycheck, back up, training, and benefits/retirement. Cap is actively causing people to give up their lives, Tony is benefiting their lives.  Really, this aspect of the registration should be seen as a good thing by both heroes, and since Tony has been funding the Avengers and has in the past tried to set up shell corporations to fund hero retirement it would make sense for him to still create these kinds of systems but not be on the side of registration, Tony (by analogy) would be in the rich people, “let’s privatize social security” camp.

I do not think words can express how much I hate this quote.  It all at once encapsulates everything that is wrong with political discourse in this country and in the world as a whole.  You could replace Captain America with literally anyone, be it Glen Beck, Bernie Sanders, Jared Fogle, Jenny McCarthy, Bill Nye, or the Red Skull and not change a word.  It is empty rhetoric, and all Captain America does to justify his position in the entire story is say crap like this.

             7) After years of fighting super criminals and murderous mad science, the SHIELD agents sent to capture heroes are dubbed "Cape Killers" even though no heroes are killed by them.  It actually makes little sense on numerous levels.  In fact there is an incident in which a registered hero tries to take in a non-registered hero and the registered hero is killed in the ensuing fight.  (Seriously, how is training and accountability a bad thing?)

             8) To help keep unlicensed heroes (and you know BAD GUYS) jailed during the Civil War Tony Reed Richards and Hank Pym invent ultra-prison in a dimension called the Negative Zone.  Why are heroes being jailed in the negative zone? I do not understand both the moral "why" and the legal "how" that allows this to be accomplished.  This is less a character issue and more of a “why didn’t they write down the registration act” thing.

             9) Tony Stark and Mister Fantastic clone Thor in an attempt to create more heroes (kind of like the Ultron program in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”).  Unfortunately the clone is not ready and it uses lethal force to subdue a “hero” named Goliath (it should be noted that Goliath was 50ft tall and charging clone-Thor at the time and knocked several SHIELD agents off a building.  It should also be noted that Goliath is a black guy, and I think that it was SUPER AHEAD OF ITS TIME commentary on excessive force).  Regardless I don’t so much see this as out of character, but another thing that should have happened differently.

Maybe Thor should have used a TASER to take down the charging suspect?

With the above listed reasons I feel that the whole of Civil War should have been different.  I think that the Iron Man led Illuminati should have been against registration and Captain America should have favored registration.  I think that Tony should have made the clone-Thor as a way of evening out the fight with the mounting government forces and it causing the death of a hero should have prompted Iron Man to surrender.  Everything in the comic was backwards.

If they had shown the registration act and had Captain America explain the issues that caused him to react as such, and Iron Man explained why he did what he did, I would understand why this was happening, but none of it makes any sense.

Thankfully the movie is going to sidestep all of this.  Rather than arguing over the place of young heroes and training, instead it is a very different Captain America and a very different Iron Man fighting over (I think) whether Bucky Barnes needs to go to trial for all the terror and murder he was forced to take part in.

The only complaint I have with the movie universe (so far) is that Tony and Cap seem to not be friends in the movie universe.  Tony seems to see Cap as a stick in the mud who would be useless without the inventions of Howard Stark (Tony’s dad).  And Cap sees Tony as lacking morals, having only taken action to help people after suffering a personal attack (while Cap tried and failed numerous times to get into the military trying to fight and make the world better).  As to whether the argument which causes the fight will make sense… I think it will, this is the creative team behind “Winter Soldier” and that is my favorite superhero movie.

Don't even get me started on how fucking stupid Spider-man acts thru this whole thing.
(Though it is still less stupid than Black Panther)

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.