Let's make some Justice Leagues, part 2

(Continued from part 1)

            As discussed before there will be 3 teams, based around the "Truth, Justice, and the American Way (Liberty)" tagline used for Superman (and by extension the DC universe as a whole).  Since Wonder Woman has a lasso of Truth, she will lead the Truth Team.  Batman is always banging on about Justice, so he will lead the Justice Team.  Superman will be taking Liberty Team, because that is actually what fits him the best.  So each will lead their own team, but will need members to fill in for the others, Batman might need a flying super strong alien or a hero familiar with the magic of the Greek gods for instance, and Wonder Woman might need a ninja detective.  So we will need to grab characters that can fill these heroes roles and work well with others.  Today is the role of Superman.

1) The Supermen.

            Superman is one of the most copied characters in fiction, I can name 8-9 versions of the character off the top of my head (Sentry, Omni Man, Apollo, Gladiator, Mr. Majestic, Icon, Captain Marvel, Blue Marvel, Hyperion, Centurion, Samaritan, and arguably Thor and Martian Manhunter... 13) but since we already have Superman himself for a team now we just need 2 more.  So lets look at the 13 I picked and knock out any not from DC leaving us with Apollo, Icon, and Martian Manhunter.

In the New 52 universe Superman is much younger and more alienated from the rest of the world.

            Icon is an alien that fell to Earth back in the 1600's as was transformed to look like a human so as to pass in the world, he is virtually immortal and lived his life as a normal person until he was discovered to have powers by his current sidekick, Rocket, and convinced to be a hero.  He was also featured in the "Young Justice" cartoon show, which I love.

He was created by one of my favorite writers of comics, Dwayne McDuffie,

            Apollo is a genetic super being powered by the sun and was part of the "WildStorm" comics company and is not really tied into the regular DC universe.  His biggest feature was in a book called "The Authority" in which he killed super villains by the bus load and married his long term boyfriend Midnighter (who is himself a much more violent interpretation of Batman).

He would add some diversity in that he is a married gay man.  But since he uses lethal force regularly, he is not a good fit.

            Martian Manhunter was the last of the Martians, formally their societies version of a police officer he was brought to Earth by a scientist who was studying teleportation.  He is a shapeshifter, so J'onn J'ozz took on human form of John Jones and became a police officer on Earth.

He was a main character of the "Justice League" cartoon from a decade ago and was featured on "Young Justice".

            I think the best pick for this group should all be aliens because it opens up the story telling to include more extra-Earth threats, and allows for more general alien weirdness (though the New 52 has tried hard to make things very bland).  Icon, Martian Manhunter, and Superman are the 3.  Apollo will have to resign himself to the team he is already on, Stormwatch.

(Continued in part 3)

Let's make some Justice Leagues, part 1

            Currently DC comics (which I remind you, the 'C' in DC stands for 'Comics') is in a bit of twist.  about 3 years ago they decided to do a bold reinvention of their old line of comics to bring them into the modern era, called "The New 52" drawing its name from my favorite comic series of all time "52", and is totally unrelated to that piece of art.

            In my opinion the New 52 was a terrible move.  It has done nothing to make DC more accessible.  It is a darker, edgier, more boring iteration of what had already been done.  With the exception of Batman and Green Lantern pretty much everyone was rest to their 60's self and vast amounts of history was confusingly rewritten.
            Many characters I liked, Power Girl, Wally West, and the Justice Society were pushed out, and while there were some new takes on old idea "Demon Knights", "Dial H for Hero", and "Animal Man" all being good examples... I cannot emphasize enough how all of their stories could have been told without the New 52 rewrite of DC.  I dislike a lot of the costumes too.

I especially hate this idiot's mask and the fact that he carries around a gun.  He has a Green Lantern ring... and carries a gun.

            DC in many ways invented the classic and modern idea of a Superhero Team idea with the All Star Squadron/Justice Society in the 40's and Justice League in the 50's/60's.  The success of the later book spurred the editorial decision to create the Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Avengers over at Marvel's house of ideas.
            Currently in the New 52 universe there are 3 Justice Leagues, the classic which is made up of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and... Cyborg (because, and I am certain of this, they wanted a black character and due to the success of the Teen Titans cartoon he was the most known).
            The other two teams are Justice League Canada, a publicity stunt by a secret organization so they could fight the main League should it ever come to it, and Justice League Dark, which as a lot of magical heroes and they fight magic things.  There was a 4th, Justice League International, but since it was about lesser known heroes, wasn't written by Geoff Johns (love him, really, but might be getting a bit too much of him), and JLI a lighter tone, so it got the ax after desperately trying to get attention by killing characters out of nowhere and failing to attain profundity for the cynical effort.

Also, for some stupid reason they spend agonizing amounts of time fighting each other rather than bad guys.
Cause... I don't know.

            I find this to be a strange mismanagement of the property, if you want multiple Leagues to serve as major titles for your books why not make them more deliberately and with less cynicism.  How would you do this?  I will show you.
            The basic group should have 7 core members, any larger and characters will not have enough panels to tell their stories, or it becomes more of a FEATURING title which has a guest star show up each issue for an adventure (that title also already exists, it is called "The Brave and the Bold", and is now defunct for some reason).  The 7 members should try to capture a broad collection of skills, powers, and personalities.... What I am saying is, you need a Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman on each team, plus four others to round things out.

Truth, Liberty, and Justice.  They are the iconic characters of the universe, so we use them as such.

(Continued in part 2)....

Fix the Scene: "Man of Steel"

Let's fix the scene.  There are some movie scenes that are fine except for some little thing, more often than not it is bad dialogue, so I will try to fix those scenes as best I can by putting in better dialogue.  To start, a scene a lot of people hate in "Man of Steel"

The Scene:

Clark has just rescued his school bus from drowning causing people to freak the fuck out about his strength.  Even having some fundamentalist lady calling it a gift from God (one of a thousand Christian allusions that exist in Superman movies made since 2000, because alien savior is an idea people get behind.... So long as it isn't Tom Cruise).

Not knowing why he is like this Clark is distraught and being consoled by his father, Jonathan.

This is a screen grab from the very film.  It is well acted and framed.  Zack Snyder knows how to hold a camera.

The actual dialogue:

Clark Kent at 13: I just wanted to help.
Jonathan Kent: I know you did, but we talked about this. Right? Right? We talked about this! You have...!
[calms himself]
Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.
Clark Kent at 13: Why?
Jonathan Kent: People are afraid of what they don't understand.
Clark Kent at 13: Is she right? Did God do this to me? Tell me!

That was not a good scene. It should have had Jon Kent saying something like this, rather than the very controversial choice of "MAYBE".

Jon: I know you want to help people, I am proud of that. That is the mark of a good person. But you have to know what a danger that puts you in. Abandoning your safety, your freedom for someone else might be asking too much of you, and that is the choice you will have to make as you grow.  I mean, it's not like you are saving strangers while wearing a garish costume or some kind of mask. At least then people might be too relieved or distracted to identify you.

Clark: Dad, what are you talking about?

Jon: I don't know son. I just know I don't want to lose you, even if it means someone else might have to lose their family. I guess I am selfish in that way. It is my weakness, and I hope you never see how far I would go to protect you from a world I don't think is ready.

Clark: Why am I like this?

Jon: Clark, I have something to show you.

____________________________________

I will happily accept suggestions for scenes to fix if people want me to.  Please comment with such suggestions.

I also have at least three other blogs about this movie.

Movies of 2013, Superhero, pt2, Superman

Man of Steel, or "Holy shit?  Did Superman just...?"

Overall: 6/10

Why don't they just put a halo over his head?  The Christ imagery is thick as any movie I have seen in years.

            I have written about this movie before and what I was really stunned by is how it compares to "Thor the Dark World" which came out later that same year and I will discuss tomorrow (because this review ran really long).  "Man of Steel" is just fine.  It is probably the most expensive film I have ever seen that I have reacted this 'meh' to, though I liked it a lot more when I initially saw it because I thought (and still do think) that it has the single best action sequence of the year involving the devastation of Smallville.  There are numerous issues, most of which have been hit on a lot by different people but I have at least one that I haven't seen anybody else write/talk about which I will get into too.

Problem 1: Lois Lane and everyone at the Daily Planet is completely useless.

            These guys should not have been in the movie at all.  While Amy Adams is a great actress, and Laurence Fishburne is a great guy to play Perry White, my point is that they have no point.  Literally everything they do could have been done by someone else to greater effect, or left out of this movie entirely and put into the sequel.

            For instance, Lois shows up at an archeological dig in the frozen north for a 20,000 year old alien craft, Clark is there because he thinks (and is right) that it is connected to his mysterious origins on a world unknown.  Lois goes out at night and finds Clark digging his way through the ice to the ship, she is attacked by the ship's security, Clark rescues her and then takes the ship and leaves her behind.  The real issue here: why did that have to be Lois?

            There is another character named Dr. Hamilton, played by an Emmy Winner, Richard Schiff who would have filled this story role much better.  A scientist that follows the mysterious alien to an ancient ship.  Follow that up later in the movie when General Zod takes Superman prisoner, and inexplicably takes Lois too.  Why?  She has no value, instead have Hamilton ask to be taken along, that he wants to see this alien society with alien technology and be an ambassador from Earth.  Zod would allow such an envoy because he wants Hamilton to relay what is coming to Earth authorities when he does attack (cause Zod is a dick).  Instead you have Lois along for adventures that she contributes nothing to, relaying information she can't understand between characters who could just talk to each other..

            By beefing up Hamilton's role it would also complete the themes of Father figures offering Superman choices in the movie, Jor-El the scientist telling him to be a messiah, Jonathan Kent the human telling him to live his own life, and then Dr. Hamilton the human scientist offering a compromise of being both a man, Clark, and a hero, Superman.

More time with these guys would have been better than the completely useless time spent at the Planet.

            The scenes in which Lois investigates and finds Superman in Smallville could have been the opener to the next movie, having a crafty reporter recap the events of the first movie while seeking out the hero and then offering to help him become a part of the world rather than some mysterious savior would do a lot to help the hypothetical second film shift into gear.

Problem 2: Metropolis was totally pointless.

            Zod is supposed to be a tactical genius with a technological advantage over those he is at war with (Earth) so why is he situating his key piece of technology (the key to his whole plan) in a major metropolitan area in which it could be exposed to attack by the most powerful military on the planet?  Why not park the things at the north and south poles?  It would take hours for American or Russian military weapons to be brought to bear against him, by which time the gravity weapon would have such a huge wake that no plane could fly in it, and no missile could be modified to target it (missile targeting depends on gravity working a consistent and certain way).

            Heck have it in Smallville, the idea of Superman's Earth life being literally smashed to nothing by the gravity of finding who he is would be a really good METAPHOR with a lot of emotional resonance and have just as many tactical issues as attacking Metropolis.  And the destruction of Smallville in this movie would prompt Clark to move to the big city in the second movie.

Problem 3: Lara Lor-Van of Krypton is completely useless.

            Aside from giving birth to Clark the role of Superman's Mom in the story is... Couldn't tell you.  To look stoic while her home planet explodes with her on it.  Compare this with Freya's role in "Thor the Dark World" (SPOILERS for Thor 2; go watch Thor 2, it is a lot of fun and has a lot working for it).

Well, I was a well developed character.

            To skip spoilers continue to my next problem.  In "Thor the Dark World" Frigga, Thor's Mom takes it upon herself to protect Jane Foster, Thor's girlfriend who is the designated MacGuffin carrier.  Freya fights against and nearly kills the main villain of the film and is only undone by the biggest physical threat seen in the movies aside from the Hulk.  Frigga is crafty, smart, has good (albeit limited) character interaction with the main characters, she has traits and a role in the story to die heroically trying to protect the universe from ruin and darkness.  Freya is cool.  Lara is not.

            How would you fix Lara?  Make her a warrior.  On Krypton people are not born, they are created and grown for purposes.  You could be designed to be a scientist, laborer, leader, soldier, or whatever.  Superman's Dad, Jor-El is a scientist, and somehow he manages to kick several soldiers' asses at a time and go on daring adventures... Let's not have him do that.  Let's have Lara do that.  Have her be a member of the warrior class, same as General Zod, and another symbol of duality in Superman, he is the child of two forbidden lovers, one a scientist, the other a warrior, it would also so Krypton to be more divergent from Earth toward gender roles, that being a man or woman does not mean one thing or the other, a concept only hinted at with the villain Faora.

            This could also add an element to Zod disliking Jor-El, that Lara was a good soldier till she met Jor-El and then left Zod's army.  It might also explain why Lara does not appear as a hologram later in the movie, that she (not Jor-El) was busy fighting Zod and buying time for Jor-El to get baby Superman on his rocket ship, so Jor-El did not get a chance to scan her into the program, currently it just looks like Jor-El left her out for no reason.  Lara is the most underused character in the movie.

Problem 4: Krypton's gloomy look.

            Krypton is the most well known planet in popular fiction aside from Planet X, which is actually just a generic catch all term for a hypothetical 10th planet in our solar system.  Having existed for 70 years Krypton has been drawn hundreds of times by a multitude of artists who have seen it as a world of crystal, a world of brightly colored tights, or in this case a world of very cold metal.

Seriously, when everything about the culture screams evil, you feel less bad that they are all dead.

            This is really the least of my problems with the movie.  My personal favorite look for Krypton is from the Animated Series in the 90's, or the goofy but shameless look in the "All Star Superman" comic from which some of Jor-El's dialogue is directly lifted.

            This is not the only movie out there going for Alien = Dark, and so it does not set itself apart from the pack.  "Star Trek" in 2009 turned heads by having everything incredibly white and shiny (hard to keep clean, looks like Apple took over) but it was eye catching and you felt like it was a bright shiny future worth saving.  In fact that is another good comparison, in "Star Trek" the main bad guy comes from a doomed plant in a dark ship that has a squid or spider like design and uses a gravity weapon to destroy of world full of people; "Man of Steel" has a villain from a doomed planet in a dark ship that has a spider or squid like appearance and he uses a gravity weapon to try and commit planetary genocide... Hell, the climax of each movie involves hitting the big unstoppable ship with a tiny ship causing the big ship to be sucked out of reality by a black hole... Fuck, that is some lazy hack writing when you get down to it.

Okay, Zod has far fewer tentacles/legs on his ship.

And come on, this space beam is orange... Not Blue!  Come on, totally not the same.

            Maybe having the main bad guys, General Zod and company show up dressed like they are going to fight "Flash Gordon" might have seemed silly, but isn't that kind of interesting?  Invasion of the goofy aliens sounds cool to me in an age of cynical and grim dark.

Problem 5: The double beat.

            The first 20 minutes of this movie is Krypton getting obliterated and having a civil war at the same time.  It is a weird alien planet with elements borrowed from "Avatar" mixed with "Alien", that is fine (even if it did not appeal to me it is a fine way for there to be an authorial stamp of those making the movie, "our Krypton is different").

            At the midpoint of the movie Clark discovers a spaceship that has a hologram Jor-El tell him about Krypton's obliteration and civil war... This is called a double beat, explaining something to the audience something they saw or have already had explained to them.  The effects and art direction of the scene are beautiful, using no color but clever moving relief sculpture to illustrate the war... Hell, this could have been the only thing we see of the destruction of Krypton, cutting out the whole opening, which is ultimately filler.  The fact is, pick one or the other, having both does only one thing: it kills the movie's momentum.

            To fix this scene you have to have Jor-El say, "I must explain to you about the end of Krypton and why you are here on Earth."  Then cut to something else.  The ship warming up to fly away, Zod's ship appearing at the edge of our solar system, Dr. Hamilton analyzing something.  But you do not explain to the audience a second time something they already know.  It is a waste of time.

Problem 6: Most of the fights.

            The fight in Smallville is the highlight of the movie and steals the thunder from all other encounters.  It is fast, destructive, showcases Superman's strength and speed, and displays the threat Zod's forces present to the Earth.  Zod's forces are fast, strong, and have training as soldiers, allowing them to use martial arts and group tactics to effect; but contrast, Superman is faster, stronger, can fly, has super senses and heat vision, but is limited by lack of training (who needs to learn wrist locks or effective punching when you can bend metal by flexing your toes)?  The Smallville throw down is amazing and showcases better than any other movie superheroic action with modern special effects.

This was the turning point of the movie, When a pilot gets vaporized into bloody mist by a Kryptonian soldier.

            The fight immediately after word is between Superman and robot tentacles in the middle of the Indian Ocean.  Here is the thing, they probably did this to shake up how and what Superman was fighting, much like how "Iron Man 3" has him fighting in a small town bar, catching people as they fall out of a plane, or an oil rig.  Visual variety is important in keeping the audience engaged, and is a big part of why the Smallville fight is so cool: Gas Station, Main Street, Department Store, Diner, Train Station, Bank, Corn Field, Farm (also allows for criminal amounts of product placement, even though Sears and IHOP do exist, so it is product placement that doesn't feel all that out of place).

            Smallville has so much to look at, so much to throw, to hit, to break, and things to be broken over, it offers a lot of destruction in an area that looks lived in and people can see themselves living in.  The middle of the ocean has no visual variety, and the tentacles just swirl around and try to ensnare.  The Tentacles are boring.

            Honestly the Smallville fight should have been the end of the movie.  Metropolis, while offering untold carnage is visually boring, dozens of buildings are falling over (cool, yes) but they all might as well be identical, none of them has visual personality or a sense of reality, they are just really big grey, and seemingly empty buildings.  Compare this to "The Avengers" which has Captain America killing aliens in an attempt to stop a massacre of civilians in a random lobby, and how (in spite of being filmed in Cleveland) the movie showcases real buildings that have a variety of visuals to them.  Hell, the part where the Hulk races through a populated office building knocking through cubicles and around people, jumping through a window and tackling a space dragon to keep it from slamming into the building and killing everyone is great, it shows signs of life and stakes.

            The final end of the movie (the most controversial thing about it) only works because Superman and Zod's fight terminates in a structure that has people in it that are in peril because of Zod, the gravity of the situation is shown on the micro level instead of just a giant smoking crater.  Where as the Smallville fight has people everywhere, feet away from soldiers getting obliterated by Faora, an awesome foe who is not named Ursa for some reason.

            And I don't know why so many action sequences seem so empty, Zack Snyder was smart to show the home front in "300", Nolan showed in the "The Dark Knight" that there were people everywhere for Batman to rescue, and David Goyer had Blade rescuing people in "Blade" several times.  All of the creative team have managed to capture the human element in their past movies, so why is it hit or miss here?

Superman vs Zod (SPOILERS for "Man of Steel")

            You know, in real life occasionally good people have to choose between killing someone and letting that person hurt an innocent third party.  This happens when a person has to sniper someone to save a hostage.

            In the ending of the movie "Man of Steel" Superman is forced to kill in hand to hand a madman bent on the annihilation of all life on Earth (that goal is stated by the villain in no uncertain terms, his desire to destroy is clear).  This is just the superhero version of the sniper and the hostage, the sniper being Superman, the hostage being the world.

            The biggest issue people seem to have is this, "Superman does not kill."  Which I do not know where they get that from.  I suppose it is their own preconceived notion toward the character, that they think of Superman is boring and can do no wrong (those are in fact the complaints I most hear about the character).  And I would say that the biggest complaint people have against Superman is that he manages to effortlessly solve problems, making it hard to identify with him.  By having the final conflict of the film be Superman vs Audience Expectations turns out is a far more interesting fight than Superman vs Zod.

            For whatever reason people expected Superman to somehow get out of the situation, I knew what was going to happen pretty much the moment I saw Zod no longer on the Kryptonian ship, his only end was going to be death.  By putting Superman in a situation that he has to compromise what people feel his values to be should make him more "human" or identifiable in the eyes of the audience.  I actually cannot figure out why it didn't.  This is something done far better than it has been presented in the past and sets up an interesting starting point for the new series.

And speaking of interesting starting points, go read JMS' "Superman Earth 1" which has two hardcover trade paperbacks out that have a rather cool take on the character.

            The reason superheroes don't kill to start with is because they need recurring villains. If Batman killed the Joker, then there would be no more Joker stories, and no more Joker action figure money. Superman's bad guys lack the option of being caged in an ineffective asylum so the idea of Zod being in prison is a hard idea to accept. If they wanted to they could have had the story end with Zod being thrown into the Phantom Zone, but they made a choice to have Superman kill Zod, which by the way: HE DID THAT IN THE REEVES MOVIES TOO.  Zod is a monster bent on genocide, why would you want Superman to leave him alive?

If you care for more of this, here is some more of me writing about "Man of Steel" and "Star Trek Into Darkness" for good measure.

"Man of Steel" vs "Star Trek Into Darkness"

"Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Man of Steel"

            Two of the biggest movies that came out this year, and two that I liked, were "Man of Steel" the start of a new Superman franchise as a creative collaboration of David S Goyer, Christopher Nolan, and Zack Snyder; and "Star Trek Into Darkness" which is a project by JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof (I think, I am cutting out several writers, but this script has a Lindelof-ish taste that I can't shake).

            The movies sort of parallel each other in some ways, a collection of 50+ year old science fiction characters battling against an evil mastermind in a gigantic spaceship, that villain kills a father/father-figure of the protagonist, and ultimately the movie ends with a knock down drag out fight in a major metropolitan area devastated by the conflict.  Both have large ensemble casts and play with big ideas ("Steel" deals with "Eugenics, conspicuous-consumption of natural resources, stagnation of societal evolution, militarized-revolution begetting fascism and abandonment of outward-looking intellectual curiosity" -Moviebob, while "Trek" deals with Eugenics, preemptive war, drone strikes, and the socio-political ramifications of its own interstellar navy: Starfleet).  The point is I think that neither completely realizes the ideas they are shooting for, but for two entirely different reasons.

            "Steel" doesn't fully explore its ideas because it is setting up a franchise that will address them.  Christopher Nolan is big on three act structure, and is very capable of delivering a social essay in the form of a movie.  Since he is producing, and the Warner Bros. studio is pleased with the movie and furthering the franchise in this direction, the ideas that were not fully put to use (because they somehow managed an origin story with a highly complex villain) and did not have time even with the epic length.

            "Trek" fails because it has Lindelof as a creative driver.  Lindelof makes stories that I like to term as "Studded".  Much like a denim jacket with shit tons of glittery bits of metal pressed into it, the ideas and symbols presented in "Trek" are not really a matter of function, but instead of flash.  Things are presented and dropped not because they have value to the story, but because the audience will go "Oh, okay".  That bit of familiarity, that bit of meaning is analogous to seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, it is meaningful because of what the audience brings to it, not because the toast wanted you to have a religious experience.

Cumberbatch plays a cool character that just keeps getting betrayed, to the point where he is far more sympathetic than he really should be.  Actually, he kinda has a Jesus thing going on because he has blood that can heal you if you get it transmitted to you.

            Now I do not want to blame JJ Abrams for why "Trek" fell short.  He is not a "Trek" fan he is merely a mind-blowing-ly competent director of visuals, pacing, action, and acting.  JJ can't be expected to delve into the mythos and make sure to draw a clear line between well developed story with homage to classic stuff, and functional story studded with references to instill the material with associative weight and strength, that is the writer's job... THEIR ONLY JOB on a "Star Trek" movie, or any movie with an established lore.

            To go back to "Steel" almost all of the ideas hinted at and introduced have appeared in the comics and cartoons.  But at the same time they picked very specific aspects to focus on.  Superman's world is a rich science fiction universe to draw on, with god like aliens, doomed civilizations at their zenith, and the perils of scientific rationality taken to dangerous extremes for any number of reasons that are unethical.  "Steel" is the introductory paragraph to a bigger message using the familiar aspects and iconography of Superman to explain and explore the issues, it is actually only held back by a lot of movie conventions.  You know what character didn't really need to be in the movie?  Lois Lane and the entire Daily Planet crew.  I like them well enough, they are well cast and promise to hold their own in future movies, but pretty much nothing in this has anything to do with them needing to be there, and number of characters could have served Lois' role in the story, and done it better (I am looking at Richard Schiff who played the underused Dr. Hamilton, he could have followed Superman into the ice cave to find the Kryptonian ship, he could have asked to be brought along to Zod's ship when Superman is taken up, he could have talked with Jor-El and worked to modify Clark's Ship into the weapon used against the Kryptonians, Lois did not need to be there.  In fact everything she does would have worked better as the cold opener to a second movie, but movie conventions say that you need Lois, you need the love interest for Superman to save... Whatever.)

Shockingly, this Emmy winning actor was cast to play a character I consider to be rather prominent in the Superman universe and is used far too little in this movie.

            Lastly the big difference is the endings, which I won't spoil really.  "Steel" ends more ambiguously, Superman's relationship with the government is murky, his place in the world is still being felt out, and he is left burdened with how the fallout of the movie's events will play out in the future.  "Trek" just sort of ends.  They tie up the loose ends, no lasting effects are felt, there is no indication for what will happen in the future.  Even events set up in the first half of the movie (an impending war with the Klingon Empire) are not mentioned, even though the movie's epilogue is a flash forward to one year after the events of the film proper.  The bad guy gets an unsatisfactory conclusion (in a way it is quite horrifying) and a lot of bad precedent is set, a get out of jail free card that will end up ignored in the future.  I still liked "Trek", it was fun.  But it has issues, and I don't feel they were intended to be followed up on.

My Thoughts on "Superman vs. The Elite"

"Superman versus the Elite"

            This is a fun movie with a clever philosophy clash that elevates it above most action pieces.  In it Superman is confronted by a team of young superheroes who grew up idolizing him.  At first Superman works with them, helping to lead and educate them on how to handle disastrous situations.  After several encounters a difference of methodology begins to take shape.  Superman, being them most powerful hero on Earth does not kill human opponents, he does not think he has the moral authority to do so being that he is an alien at that if he did, then he would just be a tyrant rather than a good Samaritan.  The Elite do not have such restrictions on themselves.  They see terrorists and dictators and violent criminals as targets for violent dispatching.  When the Elite begin pushing this further and further Superman tries to stop them and ends up in a full on showdown.

The movie is based on this comic from the 90's, which in turn was written as a reaction to the very adult "The Authority"

            This is one of the best Bruce Timm animated productions made since the end of the Justice League series, the animation has a modified style, the characters each have their own look and distinct abilities allowing for very diverse and easy to follow action.  The voice acting hits the same super high standard all of the productions reach, and most importantly it does try to have the discussion of whether might makes right.  And I really think it holds together right up until the final confrontation and the resolution.

            I did not really get what prompted the Elite to have a showdown in Metropolis.  They could have just said, "Superman, we respect you a great deal, and if you want to go on saving lives and averting disasters, please do.  But we are not as powerful as you, we feel we have to get down and dirty in order to force the world to be better.  If you don't agree that is fine, but if you try and stop us, you will actually be helping terrorists and third world dictators to continue their crimes against humanity.  Even if you think our measures are extreme, you should just step aside.  If you think we are about to turn into the monsters that we hunt, then go ahead and stop us, but right now all we have done is taken out permanently those who were definitively and demonstrably evil."

            What spurs the main conflict in the movie is a war between two countries, both of which have been developing super weapons (giant bug monsters and ray guns) instead of developing their countries' infrastructure.  They go to war and the civilian casualties are so horrific Superman steps in to try and halt the violence.  Superman is nearly killed by the highly advanced weapons and the Elite save him by killing a large number of troops (who had it coming, seriously they tried to kill Superman).  The Elite get admonished by Kal-El but then go beyond that, the Elite attack and kill the leadership of both countries and force peaceful capitulation.  Superman is horrified, but the world looks up to the Elite for the actions they took.  Then for no real reason, the Elite and Superman decide to fight each other to prove who is right.

            And, up until they started fighting Superman for no real reason, the Elite were right with what they were doing.  You don't win wars through delaying action and hoping for peace talks, you typically win by inflicting a measure of harm that keeps the other side from continuing, and in this instance neither side could do that without costing millions of people their lives.

            The battle is actually really cool too, they teleport to and from the moon, cars are flying, Superman appears to go crazy and start killing all the Elite.  Truth is Superman was illustrating his point, the whole battle was a big publicity stunt in a way.  Superman had complete control of the situation the whole time, with robots and fail safes so that it could appear that he was killing the Elite and disregarding the safety of the public so he could show the world of a superhero just using his powers to dominate (ruthlessly protect) the world rather than just trying to be helpful.  Unfortunately Superman's reasoning is wrong.

He goes a little nuts.

            Superman ultimately only wins the argument because he is so powerful that he can prove his point without actually killing anybody, and that is a luxury that no one else has.  I understand his reasoning, that in general "might makes right" is a poor philosophy that the Elite are perpetuating, but even Superman has met beings he would willingly kill:  Darksied, Brainiac, and General Zod are all examples of that.  Hell, in Superman/Batman #5 Batman nearly talks Clark into vaporizing Luthor in the Oval Office.  In other words, might makes right is still the philosophy at work, its just a more soft power approach than what the Elite ascribed to.

            There is also another point: Superman takes away the Elite's powers at the end of the movie.  I also very much disagree with Superman taking away the Elite's powers.  There was no trial for their actions.  Superman just decides to take their powers.  That isn't okay by his own logic.  That is the same as the government taking away people's freedom to travel or work certain jobs without trial.

            What is more, the movie kind of knows that Superman is wrong, and goes out of its way to show the Elite as all very Hedonistic loose canons.  One of the team members drinks too much, another is a jealous and temperamental, another is very lusty.  The team leader, Manchester is portrayed very unevenly.  As a child Manchester was homeless and lived with his little sister under a bridge and stole to survive, when one day they are caught by the police and his sister falls into the path of an oncoming train Manchester uses his powers for the first time to stop the train from killing his sister.  The accidental catastrophe which follows is tragic and really informs the character, who lies to Superman telling him what happened, but not that people were killed on the train by the untrained force of Manchester's powers.  In context of trying to save his sister those actions are justifiable, but are shown in the movie as indicative of future villainy, which is really unfair considering he is a child at the time, and probably only told Superman the lie because he was ashamed of what happened.

            So, yeah... Good movie, I liked it alot, but its message gets really foggy toward the end as it continued to shave of the depth and complexity of the argument in favor of a very paternalistic Superman being right because he is so powerful you can't disagree with him.  I give it a 7 out of 10.

(This review was spurned into existence mostly in reaction to this video, by Solkir, on the Agony Booth)

Measure of a Spiderman

            Spiderman has to be in the top 10 of most recognizable figures in Western Civilization.  He is at the center of an incredibly profitable movie franchise at the beginning of the 21st century that was along with "X-Men" the dueling efforts to have the best Superhero merchandising opportunities.

            Strangely "X-Men" and "Spiderman" chose to stick with an abandon the comic stories they were based on in different ways.  Spiderman was unquestionably faithful in a lot of ways, with a spot on J. Jonah Jameson, the best rendition of a super-costume prior to "Iron Man", and a large number of the supporting cast being thrown in and developed to different degrees.  However, much like "X-Men" (and the 90's "Batman" franchise) the drive to sell action figures pushed the creative team to over stuff the 3rd film with too many characters, causing the story structure to get completely butt fucked.  "Spiderman 3" was a bad movie that betrayed or undercut a lot of "Spiderman" and "Spiderman 2" retroactively.  The franchise was then taken out back and shot.

            However both "X-Men" and "Spiderman" are really potent properties, properties that were not owned by Marvel Studios.  The reason Spiderman was not in "The Avengers" is because he is currently owned by Sony, who also own "Ghostrider" (which Sony has no clue what to do with).  In order to hold on to those movie rights Sony has to produce a movie every so many years, so last year we got "The Amazing Spiderman" and this year we will get "The Amazing Spiderman 2".  I'm so far fine with this.  Mostly.

            When you are trying to make something that is not original, but is instead a new installment of something else the wisest thing a person can do is take the elements that are core (in this case Spiderman, Mad Science, and New York) and then take them in a new direction.  Spiderman has a big cast of characters to draw from, love interests, allies, villains, and supporting characters.  What is more the story line is pretty much pre-written and doesn't require much effort.  Almost without fail a Spiderman story revolves around someone who was trying to use mad science for profit and nefarious purposes getting turned into a monster and Spiderman having to stop them.

Not going to lie, if you study lizards for a living I kind of assume you are one lab accident away from super villainy at any minute, regardless of monstrous super power acquisition.

            "The Amazing Spiderman" does this new direction thing not nearly enough.  It keeps inviting comparisons to the old franchise.  While new casting was necessary and the actors were always going to have to deal with being compared, there really was no reason to exacerbate the problem by having that layered over the old story.  They re-tell the origin of Spiderman, a story everyone already knows and has seen on film in the last 10 years.  Then they invite it again with having Oscorp exist, the company headed by the Green Goblin, who will be appearing in "The Amazing Spiderman 2".  WHY?

            As I said, Spiderman has a big universe.  "Amazing" does use a new love interest, Gwen Stacy (played by Emma Stone) and I think she's great, she isn't just a damsel in distress but also uses her abilities to contribute to the ultimate success of saving the city from a mass poisoning.  Unlike Mary Jane (played by Kirsten Dunst) who just seemed like a constant put upon victim objectified by Peter in the original movies.  And it has nothing to do with the actresses, I like Kirsten Dunst, I like Emma Stone, it was the material that they were given to work with that set them apart.

And when they reboot it again in 2018 they'll probably have the Black Cat to work with.

            Now why couldn't they Gwen Stacy the rest of the world?  Instead of Oscorp, why not use Roxxon?  Roxxon is a lesser known entity in Marvel comics, they are less defined but still concretely evil, selling tainted medicine to the third world, irresponsible building practices, and employing mercenaries like Silver Sable to do dirty work for them.  They would actually free up the creative teams a bit to have more mad scientists and programs without being compared to the previous Goblin Industry.

            And why use the Lizard as a bad guy?  Doctor Kurt Connors appeared in "Spiderman 2" and "Spiderman 3" played by a different actor as one of Peter's Professors at NYU, a role he fills in the comics and cartoons.  The bad guy in this movie, a mutant genius with aims to turn everyone in the city into him with vague connections to Peter's past should have been one of two villains that no one has ever heard of, either Smyth the inventor of the Spider-Slayer giant robots, or the Jackal, who created a legion of Spiderman clones to take over the world.  Hell, the Jackal even has a cinematic theme to run with, wanting to create a flawed copy of the original, much as this series will inevitably be called by critics.

A small army of goofy killer robots called Spider Slayers would do a lot to lighten the tone of the movies.

This is Jackel.  One of his primary character drives in the comic was his stalker obsession with Gwen Stacey, to the point where he cloned himself a copy of her to have.

            The sequel actually seems to have this problem in spades, bringing back Mary Jane and both Harry and Norman Osborn.  And the bad guy they chose has some odd casting too.  They cast Jamie Foxx (great actor) as Electro, and he looks nothing like the character.  Electro is a silly looking character so change is appreciated, but if you are going to use a prominent black actor why not use a black character?  Like Cardiac?  Cardiac is a black character, he has electricity based powers and he is an industrial terrorist, fighting against Roxxon, the villainous corporation they should have used from the start.  Cardiac even has a fully body blue costume that actually resembles what Jamie Foxx has been shown to look like in the new movie.

Albeit, more hoody and less shoulder armor.

            "The Amazing Spiderman" does have a lot going for it, the costume looks cool (though they could have made it look really different to further differentiate the movies), the action is just better because special effects and the competitive one upping of superhero movies has compelled action to be more dynamic, and overall the casting is stronger, Andrew Garfield is a better actor than Tobey MaGuire, Martin Sheen is a better Uncle Ben than... That old guy who played him before, Denis Leary plays cops and first responders as well as anyone, and Sally Field is a great actress (though she gets to do next to nothing).  My complaints are not about the execution really, just that it doesn't do enough to stand apart.

            Look at "X-Men: First Class".  Fox Studios owns the rights to "X-Men" the same way Sony owns "Spiderman" and they made "First Class" to meet a deadline.  However they go so far away from the third X-Men movie so as to actually contradict it in places.  They are in a different era, they use characters that almost no one knows off hand, the costumes are totally different, and it really, REALLY worked.  It is hard to compare "First Class" to any of the other movies and it shines because of that.  It is its own thing.

Though I guess the sequel's job is to erase that distinctiveness and drag in all the old actors for a comparison.

            The reason I decided to write this is because I saw the new "Man of Steel" trailer and they are having some problems with differentiating themselves too.  But they are trying to work against that.  Krypton looks different, they are using new music, they have altered the costume a lot (and I think it looks really cool) and they have really good actors in every part because if they can't avoid comparison, they might as well try to vault it.

            This issue is going to come up more and more because actors get expensive and do not want to play a part forever, as of yet only "Doctor Who" has gotten around that problem entirely, and only James Bond has gotten away with ignoring it entirely (something they won't be able to do in the new era).

Halloween Costumes 2011

            I have been considering what to be for Halloween.  And have come down to about 4 options.  Each has some cost though, trying to spend as little as possible while getting a complete look will be challenging.

Halloween is cool.

             Possibility 1: Matt Smith's portrayal of the Doctor from "Doctor Who".  No TaRDiS necessary to pull this off really, and I already have the boots, but damned if his nerdy get up doesn't require some pick up.  Bowtie, red fine stripped shirt, tweed jacket with elbow patches, and black slacks with suspenders.  All of that and his flashlight sized Sonic Screwdriver, which is a bit pricey in my opinion, though it is a fun little prop if I want to cos-play as the character at a convention at some point.

Maybe the hair would be a concern too.

             Possibility 2: Superman from the New 52's "Action Comics #1".  This is Superman as he was at the beginning of his crime fighting, when his costume was a Superman shirt, jeans, boots and a cape.  Biggest problem here is the cape, which while cheap has no function beyond this costume.  I will never again wear a bright red cape.  So the last son of Krypton is cheaper than the last son of Gallifrey, but I think they are both out.

In like Flynn.

             Possibility 3: Robin Hood.  This mostly comes down to my ability to cut my goatee into a Robin Hood look, and wear some green along with it.  I will need a hat, and I think I will not go for tights, instead going for more of a green shirt, outdoor pants, and a toy bow and arrow kind of thing.  Since there is no medieval fair in this area before Halloween this one would be hard to do convincingly.

dum dum dum dum dum dum dum FLASH!  And yes, this is the only picture aside from those on IMDB, which I can't copy paste and then link to.

            Possibility 4: Flash Gordon.  This is actually the front runner because it has several advantages.  The most expensive part of the costume is the single T-Shirt, which I would but and wear anyway, and having to bleach the shit of my hair.  And yes, I will bleach the shit out of my hair because I actually considered doing that earlier this year just to see how it would look. And it is apparently easy to accomplish.

Intro to Comics: SHAZAM!

            The most iconic figure in Western civilization is a three horse race between Jesus Christ, Mickey Mouse, and Superman.  And if we were judging this by the number of commercially viable knock offs that each has produced, I am going to have to go with Superman who has been ripped off so many times it starts to boggle the senses.  The Sentry (of the Avengers), Gladiator (of the Shi'ar Imperial Guard), Majestic (WildCats), Apollo (The Authority), Hyperion (Squadron Supreme), Prime (Ultraforce), Omni-Man (Guardians of the Globe), Samaritan (Astro City), Blue Marvel (Marvel Universe), Miracle Man (Alan Moore), and the very first one that made news was Captain Marvel (Marvel Family).

This is Captain Marvel, or as he is sometimes called "The Big Red Cheese" because his naive nature makes him sound cheesy even by DC standards, whose masked vigilante, Batman won't kill a clown that murdered his son.

            Captain Marvel is very much a wish fulfillment character, rather than being the Alien god raised in the country struggling to fit in, he is instead about disaffected youth wanting to grow up.  Regardless, the design of the character, the powers of the character, and the nature of his villains made him very much a knock off of Superman to the point where his creators at Fawcett Comics were sued for plagiarism.  Ironically, Fawcett comics and their stable of characters were bought out by DC years later, Marvel sued DC for using the name Marvel, so the character was called Captain Marvel, the comic was called "SHAZAM!"  This naming problem is what most people point to as why the character is not as well known now, because when he started out, his sales beat Superman, which is why Fawcett was sued.

I couldn't find a picture of Superman fighting Mickey Mouse and Jesus, though I am sure such an image exists.

            Captain Marvel is in reality the teenage radio celebrity Billy Batson an orphan who lived on the streets with his sister, Mary.  Having a good heart and a brave spirit he was found by the mysterious wizard Shazam who took both Billy and eventually Mary to his home, the Rock of Eternity.  The Rock of Eternity it a magical constant in the universe, it exists deep in the ethereal world and is the prison for the original seven deadly sins that were freed from Pandora's Box, and the place to keep and store the numerous mystical hullabaloo and MacGuffins that the Justice League finds each and every year.  The Wizard was old, far older than any mortal should ever live and having never had a son wanted to create a legacy to carry on his good works, guarding the 7 Sins and Rock from the evil forces that would use them to harm the world.  Shazam had tried this before using the North African King known as Teth Adam turning him into a mighty warrior who brought great peace and prosperity to Africa, but was ultimately corrupted by the power.  So essentially Shazam learned what Willy Wonka had known all along, you need to find a child to impose your beliefs upon, or else they will do things their own way.

            Billy was told by the Wizard, "You have only to speak my name and you shall transform into my champion, Captain Marvel" at which point I imagine an awkward pause until the Wizard reminded Billy, "My name is Shazam."  "SHAZAM!"  Then being shouted Billy transformed into an adult version of himself, gaining the Wisdom of Solomon, the Strength of Hercules, the Stamina of Atlas, the Power of Zeus, the Courage of Achilles, and the speed of Mercury, the capital letters of each mythical being spelling out SHAZAM, because, you known, that is how branding works in the magical kingdom good thing this wasn't Norse myth with Skadi, Heimdall, Idun, and Thor.

I'm guessing they couldn't find gods whose initials spelled Merlin.

            Regardless of poor naming conventions Captain Marvel fought a series of villains that were laughably and uncompromisingly evil.  There was Doctor Sivanna, who makes Lex Luthor look subtle and cultured by comparison; Mister Mind a worm that burrows into your brain, steals your knowledge, controls your actions, and when he gestates long enough turns into a giant monster that eats time; Psycho Pirate, who has a magical mask that allows its wearer to control the emotions of others; and then there was Captain Nazi, who is exactly what you think he is.  Aside from the mad scientist, alien earworm, masked hypnotist, and Nazi, Captain Marvel also fought a lot of bank robbers, supernatural monsters, and cabals of magic users.

"I in no way resemble the popular antagonist of the DC intellectual property 'Superman', for one thing I am much more unlikable and complex.  Though I do have a hot wife and 4 kids."

Mister Mind, truly a foe to be feared and respected.

The single best iteration of Captain Nazi's costume.  Ironic that so many of them are just flat out stupid when the Nazi's as an organization have some of the most stylish and cool looking uniforms ever made.

            Eventually the Wizard granted Mary the power to turn into Mary Marvel, a teenage version of herself with all of the powers of Captain Marvel.  They also eventually drafted Freddy Freeman, a kid crippled by Captain Nazi, to be Captain Marvel jr, and a talking were-tiger named Tawky Tawny, who dresses like Jimmy Olsen.  Really, the talking tiger thing should push this into the territory of "Okay, now you are just making stuff up" but this is a universe where a character is named Detective Chimp exists and is awesome, so really you need to loosen up when you start going down these halls, as this way lies madness.

It was a different time, acid wasn't as stigmatized as it is now, people were more willing to throw out a new idea in hopes of finding a market, rather than just hoping to jump on bandwagons like they do these days.

            By far however the most interesting character to come out of this whole comic series is Black Adam, the original champion of the Wizard Shazam.  Unafraid to use lethal force against evil enemies, willing to work with both villains and heroes in order to further his own interests (which is a very barbaric vision of a utopia), and generally being looked at with both fear and suspicion by everyone in spite of helping to save the world on more than one occasion.  He is by far the most interesting character of Middle Eastern or African origin and if the Captain Marvel movie gets made, I really hope that Dwayne Johnson can do the character justice.  (Yeah, they cast The Rock as one of the most complex characters in comics.)

Black Adam Kills Psycho Pirate by pushing a mask through his brains, with the most oddly bad ass line ever, "No more silly faces".

            In the last ten years these characters have gone from irrelevant, to fascinating, to confusing, to... well... crap.  Black Adam got a family with Isis and Osiris, who were both killed, which made him crazy so he killed thousands in a roaring rampage of revenge (seriously, read "52" it's fucking metal), then Billy took away his powers, then Adam got them back, then he gave them to Mary who had lost hers, so he was just a guy and she turned evil for no good reason, then she was possessed by the dead god of mad science, SHAZAM was killed by God's renegade angel of Vengeance, so Billy became the Wizard, and then Freddy became Captain Marvel, but now he is called Shazam and he yells MARVEL to transform... yeah, it got shitty.  Sadly, it will stay shitty, unless the movie gets made.  Comics tend to reset the status quo a bit when a movie or cartoon is made for them, movies have a twin blade effect, cutting back on innovation made in good comics, and trimming fat and stupidity off of bad developments made to bad characters.  And holy shit is there a lot of bad development to these characters (do not read "Countdown", it did a lot of this to these characters).

Mary Marvel in both her good and evil outfits.  I might be mistaken, but I think that as a child with the body of a grown woman, that is both naive and corrupted by evil power, she might be the single most fetish inducing character in comics prior to Hit Girl.  (Important to note: the character is currently no longer underage, they had her grow up)

This is the little girl version of the character.  A Child from the streets with a good heart and the power to save the world.  She helps out a lot.  Read Jeff Smith's run on the characters, they are great.

            The best iteration of these characters in recent time comes in two flavors, Billy and Mary are at their best in "Shazam!: The Monster Society of Evil" by Jeff Smith (who is the best writer-artist in the industry), where as Black Adam was at the top of his game in "52".  Prior to that you'll have to track down a lot of "Justice Society of America" from back in 2002 back when Geoff Johns breathed new life into the characters like he did just recently (AGAIN!).

Hopefully they make him awesome again.  That's all I'm saying.