Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice Film Review

Okay, so it’s come down to this.  I feel that we are so far removed from the initial theatrical release of the film that I can actually talk about it without fear of spoiling it for anyone.  If you still haven’t seen it, buy or rent “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and watch it before you keep reading.  You’ve been warned.

Also, we’re going to cover the theatrical version of the film here today, because that is what is going to be determined by many as cannon for the film franchise.

But like our titular heroes I’m not tackling this alone.  I’m pulling assistance from William Dilbeck, who, despite my insistence has staunchly refused to start his own blog, likely because he has better things to do with his time.  At least so he says.

So let’s talk about Ben Affleck as Batman, which kicking off had to be the most (later second most) controversial thing in the movie.  Will?

“He’s a decent Batman.  Better than bale in some respects.  He’s more believable as Bruce, but his story line was better, and that’s not Bale’s fault.”

This is true.  Ben Affleck had a lot more creative influence when it came to his interpretation of Bruce Wayne/Batman than Bale likely ever did.  Through his working relationship with Zack Snyder he was allowed to give Bruce more depth and a wider range of emotions.  I think it’s also important to note this was meant to be Bruce 20 years into being Batman, while the total time in the suit that Bale’s Batman had was about 11, maybe 12, nearly twice as much time.  Further, this Batman never gave up the role so he comes across as more driven than the previous incarnation.

Next up is the MOST controversial role in the film, Jessie Eisenberg’s unapologetic portrayal of Lex Luthor.  Serious he has not apologized for this performance, and I for one won’t ask him to.  Eisenberg was compared by a lot of people to the Joker, in that his mannerisms seemed overly silly and his motivation didn’t make any sense.  At least if you don’t put certain elements into context.  Again, this is strictly from the theatrical cut.  Admittedly the performance was hard to swallow.  Will said “I didn’t like 40% of him.” This is fair, considering we’ve got over a dozen other actors who’ve portrayed the same character over the years to compare him to.  Yet one cannot escape that there has never been a portrayal like this.  While Gene Hackman’s Lex may bleed over into Kevin Spacy’s incarnation and there into Michael Rosenbaum’s, nobody played Lex like Jessie.  Also, if you consider Jessie’s body of work, could you imagine him trying to play that character, the cold, calculating business man?  He played Lex the mad scientist, which is something they’ve pulled away from over the last few decades up to the point that the character trait is more incidental than defining.  He brought it back in full force, and you can see his manipulation throughout the entire film.  He actually is the smartest person in the room when you think about it.

Mad Max, starring Batman?

 

Then there his motivation, which many have described to be completely non-existent, but it’s actually right there in the movie, if you are paying attention.  Remember that dream sequence Bruce Wayne had about Superman in the desert?  The one with the “Omega” symbol burned into the ground and parademons flying around?  The symbol and the parademons have nothing to do with Superman, and by proxy there should be no reason Bruce would have them in his mind.  If the nightmare is Bruce’s own psychosis playing on his own fears of Superman, then shouldn’t the burned mark in the ground been the Superman symbol?  Shouldn’t those have been modified human soldiers or Kryptonians flying around?  Yet there we have everything that reaches back to Darkseid and his crew.  The dream, if you think about it, wasn’t from Bruce’s mind, but rather it was sent to Bruce’s mind.  And Lex had a similar dream.

If you consider the dream to be ramping up Batman’s fear and hatred of Superman, then if Lex had a similar dream, then you can draw the reasonable conclusion that he’s being ramped up to by an outside force.  In his final scene, Lex even alludes to being manipulated by forces “beyond the stars”.  They couldn’t quite bend Bruce, but they broke Lex.

Again, that’s all in the theatrical cut, but it was ignored due to Eisenberg’s performance.

They understood that I was bat-crap crazy, but never why...

 

Superman was a different ball game all together and, probably the shortest changed.  It’s been long said that Superman is difficult to write and that shows here because he becomes an incidental character in his own sequel.  Set less than 2 years after Man of Steel, even though the film was released 3 years later, they talk about “Superman’s impact” on the world, but they don’t show it until AFTER they talk about it.  If they played it logically they would have had the sequence where Superman is going around saving the day across the globe, and then follow it with news footage of the fallout from it, then talk about whether or not he’s doing any good here.  I know that in the extended version they have Lex manipulating events to make Superman look bad, but they really don’t need to.  I thought the way it played out made sense in the context of the film.  Superman’s presence, even if it was just to save Lois (here I go again) Lane could be seen as an act of U.S. military aggression.  He’s an American superhero and during his debut worked extensively with the U.S. military to halt the Kryptonian invasion.  But since they never talk about that part in the film, it’s hard to draw that conclusion.  Which this is part of the problem with the portrayal of Superman in the film, you don’t feel his real impact on the world.  You don’t get this sense of how he’s this major hero to a lot of people.  They talk about it, but they don’t really show it, at least not for Metropolis where his memorial is supposed to take place.  Instead they kill of Superman using the “Death of Superman” concept but it doesn’t feel like they earned it.  They didn’t earn the right to kill Superman in his second movie.  Had there been a film in between which showcased his selflessness in fighting for earth, maybe we could push the death a little easier, but when you give the second named character in the title minimal screen time, you haven’t earned that right.

Going back to motivation really quick, Batman’s chief argument is that Superman doesn’t consider the collateral damage to his actions.  Which is a hypocritical argument coming from a guy who killed a truck driver, blew up hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, and mercilessly obliterated a dozen henchmen, all to steal an element that would help him eventually kill Superman?  Of course Superman stopped him and tore up the batmobile, he was on a rampage through the city.  Who knows who else would have died because he wanted to “defend the world” from Superman.

On the flip side of that, Superman doesn’t seem to care that much about collateral damage.  Take that sequence where he saves Lois in Africa.  He flies over two dozen dead bodies, and doesn’t wonder what happened.  Not to mention the guy holding the gun to Lois’ head.  Sorry you can go through two walls why being propelled by a battering ram and survive.  Maybe if he’d spared that one guy he could have gotten to the bottom of why all these guys are dead.  The scene at the hearing where the bomb in Lex’s wheelchair blows up, he later complains that he didn’t know if he just didn’t see it, or if he didn’t look for it.  That’s a fair question Clark because you know you are hated and bombings in government buildings happen a lot.  So…you didn’t look for it because for just a moment you didn’t give a rat’s ass.

Your argument is invalid

 

Let’s talk about something awesome…Wonder Woman.  I laugh at the haters when they found out Gail Gadot was playing Diana Prince in this film because it was all “she’s too skinny, she’s too little, she has no acting experience” then she shows up in the film, plays Bruce for a sap, does some actual detective work, and then jumps into the big monster fight at the end, and just dominates that battle field.  She made Batman look completely ineffective and Superman look like a punching bag.  She was the only one able to make a critical strike on Doomsday and restrain him.  With Wonder Woman, she didn’t talk much which made you pay attention when she did, and Gail’s facial expressions were just on point.  Plus they gave her some incredibly awesome music.  This is a Wonder Woman we’ve waited 75 years to see.

You've forgotten what your argument was

 

This might be the part where I address how Lois was either annoying, useless, or caused more problems than she helped fix…but that’s Lois Lane in the films.  I wish I could give her more credit or say that Amy Adam’s performance was amazing, but it was very “second verse, same as the first.”  Amy is a great actor, but she wasn’t given that good of a role here.

Maybe next time, Amy.

 

The cameos of Flash and Aquaman were pretty cool, though I was disappointed with the cameo of Cyborg.  I don’t know, when you had the other two actually doing something on screen, it seems kind of a letdown not to have Cyborg equally awesome.

Sonic...he can really move!

 

He's got an attitude...

So in conclusion, would I recommend this movie?  Only if you are willing to give it a shot, an honest to God chance, and you allow yourself to think about what’s going on.  If you want something to just munch popcorn to, you probably won’t have that much fun, because it’s going to ask you to think.

Do you need the Ultimate Edition?  Eh, probably not.  It doesn’t add that much to the story itself.

Part of this review was brought to you by William Dilbeck, author of the Lake Haven Chronicles, which you can find here:

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Dead-Lakehaven-Chronicles-ebook/dp/B00JLPG8HE#nav-subnav

Please check it out.

Until next time…Thanks for reading.

The Hero’s Journey: The Path of Sam Witwicky

                First off, I want to say, I do not hate nor do I blame Shia LaBeouf for anything.  People like to rag on him because it’s easy.  He started out a child actor, and as a young adult actor was given roles in movies that weren’t great, but that’s not his fault.  He did his job and, in the context of the end result, did it well.

Yet, we aren’t necessarily talking about him today, at least not directly.  We are talking about a character he brought to life, one Sam Witwicky, probably the most hated and derided character in the Transformers movie franchise.  However, he’s not even that bad of a character.  We have to look at what he represents, how his actions inform where he is at during the stages of his life that we see. 

In Transformers, the first live action endeavor, we meet young Sam, a high school student desperate for two things; 1) a car, and 2) to get with the girl of his dreams Mikaela Banes.  Now looking backwards in time, through the lenses of age, reason, and experience, we can criticize his choices, his actions, and his motivations…but would we really have acted much different if put in his position?  Think about it the target demographic of your average Michael Bay film…its Sam Witwicky.  That is who Michael Bay plays to, and that is the mindset of the average white heterosexual male American teenager.  You want a car that will help you get noticed by the girls.  That’s it.  Your world is hormones and you have no idea what you are doing.  At no point during the film did Sam really take charge of the situation.  He has strong feelings about Bumblebee and insists he be released, but had it not been for the intervention of Lennox and his team, along with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, he would have been overruled and kicked to the curb.  The only reason he was even there to begin with is because he’s had immediate contact with the aliens.  He has no special skills, talents, or information.  The only time he says something that everyone else in the room doesn’t already know is when he points out that Megatron is a huge threat.  They were going to find that out in a few minutes anyway and it never shifts the tone or the weight of the situation.

Essentially Sam is an unwilling participant in his story, his life has been high jacked, and that is a common element on the hero’s journey.  Often the main character will be forced along his quest by a collection of circumstances.  Luke Skywalker initially rejected Obi-Wan’s offer to become a Jedi.  Bilbo Baggins rejected Gandalf’s offer to become Thorin’s resident burglar.  Young Arthur initially scoffs at the notation that he might actually be the King of England.  Yet just like those narratives, there comes a moment where Sam, likely without thinking about it, accepts his place in the story.  Sam, after the incident at the Hoover Dam becomes a delivery man.  His job is to take the cube from point A to point B.  He has to run the ball down field and it is everyone else who heroically fights off the Decepticons to give him a clear path.  That’s not where he takes his place.  No, again that is just Sam following the direction of everyone else, like you do at that age.  You may think you are forging your own path during your teens, but how much of your own life is decided by other people?  Teachers, parents, principals, doctors, friends, parents of friends, your entire life is dictated by committee.  It wasn’t until Optimus offered himself to take on the cube’s immense power and sacrifice himself that Sam made his own decision.  He and he alone, chose to shove the cube into Megatron’s spark, killing him.  This was the Hail Mary throw.  This could have ended disastrously, but it worked.

However that doesn’t mean that Sam has control of his life now.  Quite the opposite, in Revenge of the Fallen (which I’ll talk in more detail about in a later essay), Sam has returned to his tried and true methodology of taking cues from everyone else, and it makes sense given his age.  Sam is going into college, which means he wants to take control of his own life, but he can’t quite get there.  That is very common for that demographic.  Going from high school into college is a transition period that becomes very complicated very quickly.  He continues to defer to those around him and again, he is summoned into the Hero’s Journey.  His life is defined by those around him and he reacts at lot like how many of his contemporaries react.  I think it’s here that people take issue with Shia LaBeouf because he portrayed a character who isn’t really that likeable, but that is typical for that age group.  People aren’t upset because Shia’s a bad actor or plays a bad character, but rather that the character he portrayed is a reflection of that subsection of society.  They are angry because they see themselves in the character.  A result of writing, or lack there-of created a movie that hit a lot of the same notes as the first.  Which is pretty accurate since your freshman year of college often feels like a rehashing of your high school experience.    That doesn’t excuse the production, but it does inform why they did what they did when they did it.

Where the Hero’s Journey really comes full circle is about the middle of the third film.  The beginning of the film featured another transition for the character, going from college to the world of adults and trying to find a job.  Sam is dealing with a lot at this point, he’s complaining that he got a medal from the president and saved the world twice and can’t tell anyone about it.  On one hand he’s feeling entitled because of all that he did, but on the other hand, he really didn’t do that much.  Again, his Hero’s Journey had him essentially run the ball to the goal while everyone else fought the battle.  In the second film, all he really did was plug a new battery into Optimus Prime.  Had it not been for the intervention of Jetfire, Optimus likely would have been killed again during the ensuing battle.  Sam is placing a lot of important emphasis on his past, which is what you do when you are fresh out of college.  You are hung up on what you did, but what employers, what adults, what the world wants to know is “What are you going to do now?”

That question becomes an essential theme for Sam during the movie.  As the world he knows is stripped away from him through the violence of the alien war and the betrayal of former allies, he is left with those around him telling him what to do, or rather, what not to do.  Remember our first two films?  His world was loaded with people telling him what he needed to do, what they needed him to do, but now there is no one telling him to take this here and do that, to plug that in there and restart that.  Now they just look at him and say they’ve got nothing.  Nothing he’s done to this point matters, not anymore.  He now has to ask himself “What are you going to do now?”

This, like I was saying, is where he comes full circle.  He finally has agency in his story, he picks himself up and says “I’m going in and I’m going to save the woman I love.”  Even Epps who has come with him to the edge of the city says it’s a lost cause, but he chooses to push on, and honestly, Shia sells that moment.  That is the end of the kid and the beginning of the man.  This time, people are taking cues from him, following his lead.

I was actually kind of glad that the character was absent from the fourth film, not because I didn’t like him, but rather because it was time for his character to move on.  I don’t think Michael Bay and his team would have been able to really shape the character any further, and Shia was having so many problems at the time I don’t know that he would have been able to devote much energy into continuing Sam’s story even if he wanted to.

Ultimately Sam’s story will always be one of contention because the lens of nostalgia is not a forgiving one.  I don’t know that I would mind if they revisited the Sam character later on down the road, but I would ask that they give him a new story, one where he decides where he goes from now on.

Thank you,

Suspension of Disbelief

Sometimes I feel the need to justify why I talk about certain topics.  Well, today is another day.  You may have noticed that I've spoken frequently about a lot of television and movies, but not so much about the average novel.  That's because I'm addressing popular, mass consumed media.  People, I'm noticing, don't have much time for books anymore.  This is depressing, mainly because one day I hope to publish a novel of my own, but I also completely understand why.  After becoming a parent I found myself with precious little time to read anything that didn't have hard-cardboard pages or wasn't a book made entirely out of fabric.  I sincerely don't think anyone wants me giving a critique on "Hop on Pop" any time soon.  If you do, you may want to re-evaluate your priorities.

As it is, the times when I do have an opportunity to read, well, anything, is when I am out of town for a work trip, which admittedly isn't that often.  So, I watch a lot more than I read, and I've watched a lot.  A lot of television, a lot of web reviews, a lot of short comedy videos and a lot of major studio movies.

In doing so, I've also nitpicked a lot of little issues.  I've watched procedural cop shows like "Blue Bloods", "CSI", and "Castle".  Working in law enforcement I've openly balked at how little procedure is followed in procedural cop shows.  Either they've gotten so out of the realm of possibility with their forensic science that it might as well be science fiction, or their procedures are so poorly adhered to that they should have a conviction rate of approximately 0%.  These issues, however, can fall under the category "creative license", or as I've come to understand it "rushed research".

Three factors plague the cop show.  1) Studio expectations:  The studio needs the production company to bang out a product in as short as time possible.  That said, writers can't spend a lot of their time looking up laws and studying criminal justice text books to get every aspect right.  "Law and Order" has had to take short cuts and they are considered the high mark of the procedural show.  "CSI" in it's various incarnations has to talk about forensic science, but the writers aren't forensic scientists themselves.  They are paid writers and as such have to focus on telling a good story without bogging the audience down in the science.  Which leads to the next problem:

2) Assumed education level of the audience: The writers can't know if the person watching their show at home has an associates in criminal law, heck most people working the rank and file of civilian jobs in law enforcement don't have an associates in criminal law.  They need to write to the lowest common denominator, and so throw in some techno jargon, flash some stuff over a computer screen, call it science and move on with their story.  The science is a tool within the story, but not the story itself.  They can't let the science or the procedure out shine the story and tone of the work.  This brings us to:

3) The tone of the piece:  I don't think anyone looking is looking to "Castle" for hard hitting crime drama, that's not the tone of the show.  The show is lighter, happier, and more hopeful than say "Law and Order".  Actions don't necessarily have consequences that carry over into the next episode.  Much like Kenny from the early days of "South Park", next episode we will be back to status quo.  In that regards, the show feels more like a cartoon than anything else.  The line "We'll send it to tech for clean up..." sounds a lot more fun than "That's the best resolution we can get because of the pixel ratio and the software that powers the camera itself."

Having reality interrupt your escapist fiction is jarring, especially if it doesn't fit in the tone of the piece.  You watch the news or documentaries for reality, everything else is to escape from that reality, with varying levels of departure.

Its no secret, I love Superman.  My sister professes that I've loved the character since before I was born, which is entirely possible I guess.  Some years ago, around the time "Superman Returns" came around, the History Channel presented a piece called "The Science of Superman".  I watched it, and I kept coming back around to one simple response to every complaint they had about Superman's impossible powers..."Its not suppose to be real.  Its a comic book."  They were trying to invade Superman's world with reality, and there's really no place for it.  It doesn't fit, and no amount of hammering will make it fit.

However, as I said earlier, there are various levels of departure from reality.  A good measuring stick for this would be the Batman film franchise.  In Tim Burton's "Batman" from 1989, it clearly took place in it's own world, like it was lifted from the pages of a 1940's comic book.  Stepping into that world, you could believe everything they told you, because nothing stood out as weird.  As the movies progressed, the world got weirder and weirder, and regardless of how you actually felt about the movies themselves, you can honestly say that each Batman belonged in that world.  Then you move to Christopher Nolan's Batman.

Nolan and his team sought to ground Batman in something resembling reality.  The world was gritty, but not overly so.  There was both hope and hopelessness and our hero stumbled and fell along his journey as we all do.  Yet nothing about Batman himself stood out in "Batman Begins".  He fit into his reality, and we weren't prone to question it since that reality felt a lot like our own.  "The Dark Knight" came around and, again, it felt close enough to our world that we didn't waste any part of the movie questioning it.  But "The Dark Knight Rises" had the dubious task of upping the ante and bringing the overall story full circle.  The problem is that reality doesn't up the ante, so much as it just pushes on and we react accordingly.  The world of Nolan's Batman felt so close to ours that our suspension of disbelief wasn't really being used, so when Batman travels halfway around the world into a no-mans land without any conceivable means of conveyance, and accomplished this journey in what seems like a day, we are suddenly jarred.  Then he seemingly survives a nuclear blast.  Suddenly we have to suspend a lot of disbelief, the distance between our world and the fantasy world has grown to huge lengths with no time to adjust.

That's like having a transformer show up in a Tyler Perry movie.  It has no place and our brains aren't ready for it.

The only thing I can think of that Nolan and his team could have used as a bench mark to justify this is a line from an interview with Stephen Speilberg when he was talking about "Jaws".  Spoiler alert if you haven't seen this classic.  At the climax of the film, the main character shoots an air tank lodged in the shark's mouth and it explodes half the shark.  Speilberg knew this wasn't accurate, and his team knew it.  When they talked to him about it he addressed the suspension of disbelief as such "If I've had them for this long, at this point in the movie, they'll believe anything I tell them."

This, isn't wrong.  But if that was the bench mark, then Nolan and company forgot that prior to the shark blowing up, we were treated to other physical improbabilities, like a giant great white shark, said shark being strong enough to drag barrels below the surface, its ability to pull a very large boat, and destroy a bigger boat with it's shear bodily force.  Physics took a back seat to story and that's fine, because it all fit together.  We didn't have to suddenly suspend our disbelief for the air tank because it was already suspended for the rest of the movie.

The Nolan-Batman films, however threw us super-speed Batman who can walk on water while sauntering away from a nuclear explosion without giving us anything to build on.  Yeah, its a billionaire who dresses as a bat, but they worked so hard to make it make sense.  They put it all in context and then threw it out the window.

Now, when I say I don't read a lot, it doesn't mean "I don't read."  I do.  I'm currently reading a book by my best friend, "Under the Undead Moon" by William Dilbeck.  As you may have guessed, I can be very critical, especially when I believe people could do better.  That said, there is some police procedure that my friend gets wrong, but I honestly let it slide, because its a supernatural horror story.  I can't really nit pick that someone's Miranda warning wasn't read when they were fighting zombies a few pages earlier.  Actually I could, but I won't because it doesn't violate the tone of the book.  It wouldn't be fair because when you put it into context, its not wrong.

We can be hyper critical, but if there has been one thing I have learned from my kids, its that you will never enjoy a story if you spend all your time standing outside it picking at it.

At the same time, a suspension of disbelief, or as I said in "Batman Begins" a lack there of, can sometimes hinder further story ideas.

Some time ago, I was discussing with a college about the idea of a "Justice League" story, ala Marvel "The Avengers" film franchise, where they could tie it into the Christopher Nolan Batman films.  Looking at it now, I can say it would not have worked.  You could not have connected "Superman Returns" to "Batman Begins" to "Green Lantern", because all three worlds felt so different in the films.  Regardless of what you say about Marvel's franchise, they balance out comic book silly with epic film making.  "Superman Returns" could have connected to "Green Lantern", but they could not link up with the final installment of the Batman trilogy because of one character, Bane.

Bane, in the comics, is a super villain who takes a super steroid called "Venom" to grow massive and become super strong.  In the film "The Dark Knight Rises", he's a man in exceptional shape who's body is so wracked with injuries he needs a mask constantly pumping anesthetic into his system to stave off crippling agony.  His presence in the franchise serves as a blockade of disbelief.  If you have a universe where Superman and Green Lantern exist, then why can't Bane use his venom drug?

Now, for me at least, all of these movies work on their own.  I can enjoy "Superman Returns" and "The Dark Knight Rises" equally, but that's because their set up requires a unique suspension of disbelief, I don't have to ask a bunch of questions to make it make sense.  Put them together, and you open a lot of plot holes.  The reason you spot plot holes after repeated viewings sis because you are initially immersed in that world.  Its not until  your second or third time in that "pool" that you start to notice it.

That's why I'm actually grateful for the new stories coming out with "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman" (though the latter sounds like a court case) leading into their Justice League story...they are establishing a new world where possibilities are open for story telling.  Will I nit pick?  Probably, but at least I will do it later rather than during the films.

Remember, when it comes to your escapist fiction: Go big, or go home.

Later.

Follow up to Man of Steel Blog

So, did you ever spout some exposition about science that turned out to be completely wrong?  I did, and I'm man enough to admit it.  When one looks at the Fortress of Solitude, one sees a crystal construct built in the middle of the Artic Circle, and one naturally assumes it has to be insanely cold.  Well, probably not.

Take a look at this article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/crystal-giants/shea-text.  The gist of it is that a location encased in crystals is actually pretty dang hot.  Insanely hot.  Causes heat stroke in the causal visitor hot.  Which, if you put two and two together, makes you realize that the Arctic Circle is one of the few locations on the planet where a crystal fortress would make sense.  Given the meeting of these two extremes, you would have a residence that's probably a pretty comfortable temperature, shrouded in a thick layer of fog.

Superman bringing Lois there with no winter clothing makes sense since the close proximity of crystals that large would keep her warm, while the intense cold of the out doors would prevent the crystals from becoming a natural oven.  The process of the heat escaping into the cold would create a large cloud around the building.

If anything, Lex Luthor and his cronies in Superman Returns should have had to strip off their heavy coats upon entering otherwise they would succumb to heat stroke.

So what does that mean to the previous blog?  Well, General Zod, now made human (shattered hand and all) probably wouldn't have died of hypothermia.  Given that he fell down a crevice, who's foundation and walls are made of closely placed crystals, would have probably died of heat stroke.  We're never given an idea of how deep these crevices are, only that their deep enough for a prolonged, echoing scream as the Man of Steel's helpless victims plummet to their ultimate demise.  Either they broke their necks and/or back on impact, or they were rendered unconscious upon impact and were slowly broiled alive.

Or, since Superman Returns portrays Superman leaving Earth shortly after having relations with Lois Lane (since her relationship with Richard White came close enough that she affords some ambiguity about her child's paternity) and Superman stayed away from Earth for five or six years, if Zod and crew did survive their fall, Zod at least starved to death, unable to climb out with a broken hand.

Would that be a deleted scene from Superman Returns, having Non and Ursa climb out of their respective crevices, pull Zod out, only to have the three die in the frozen tundra as the Fortress was shut down and abandoned.

I'm not saying that Superman is a horrible character, or that Superman 1, 2, and Returns are horrible movies.  Quite the contrary, I love them, flaws and all.  My stance is that we tend to hold Superman to a standard that has never actually been set, either by his publishers, his writers, or his creators.  Superman has generally held to the ideal that death is the last possible option, but in other instances has willfully taken a life, and not always to the benefit of the story.  Each instance was decided upon by a team of people and came from trying to tell the best possible story.  If anything, the death of General Zod in Man of Steel was one of the most justifiable instances in all of Superman's history.

Thanks for reading.

Does DC Hate their Fans?

Probably one of the worst things any company, any agency can do is under-utilize it’s assets.  That is why I have dim predictions for Warner Bros./DC Comics future film ventures.

It starts with their announcement that they will be producing a Justice League film set to debut (in it’s first installment) in 2017.  Here is my concern; Since last year DC Comics, via the CW Network, has been producing rock solid live action adaptations for their characters, and while this practice started with Arrow, it really lifted off the ground and gained altitude with the Flash, starring Grant Gustin.  His portrayal of the Scarlet Speedster lends a level of credibility to the shared TV universe as well as a believability to the idea of a man who can run faster than the speed of sound.  Grant has quickly come raced (pun intended) forward as a fan favorite, and easily won the honor of being the definitive portrayal of Barry Allen.

Coupled with that, CW DC will be expanding its universe by including a third spin off series featuring Hawkgirl, standing alongside already established heroes as the Atom, Black Canary, Wild Cat, and Arsenal.  CBS, by way of Warner Bros. television has picked up Supergirl, who is being produced by many of the same people who already brought us the CW DC, so many that, while plans for a cross over aren’t set in stone, they are still open to the idea, so for arguments sake, let’s say they are in the same shared universe.

So to do a quick recap, we have: Arrow, Flash, Black Canary, Atom, Supergirl, Hawkgirl, Wild Cat, Firestorm, Arsenal, soon Vixen, and a slew of villains in the CW DC.

In the shared film universe we have Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg.

We already have a Justice League.  Yet WB is apparently going for a separation between the TV Universe and the Movie Universe with the diverging point being the Flash, who in the Movie Universe is slated to be played by Ezra Miller.

This is where my head hit the desk.  Why, why would you not cast the guy who brought a new generation of fans to the character?  These fans want to give you their money, let them see their familiar face on the big screen with a stupidly huge budget!

I can’t talk about DC’s movie ventures without at least addressing the ridiculous success of Marvel’s current projects.  Why are Marvel’s projects so successful while DC’s have been, shall we say less than fortuitous?  Because Marvel wants to bring the best possible product to the table, they want to bring a story that is engaging to fans of all ages.  Man of Steel caught a lot of flak because they went for a dark and grittier Superman origin.  While that was not necessary in the least, I can appreciate them trying to bring the Superman mythos into the 21^st century.  Who else did they try to make dark and gritty?  Green Arrow.  They called him “Arrow”, made him talk like he needed a cough drop something fierce, and let him kill people.  And the fans did not like this.  While there was enough support to keep the show going, they eventually had to change the tone of the show.  They did this by dropping the “he kills people angle” and with the introduction of the Flash allowed stories to get a little lighter.  Not too much lighter, but a little.  Shared character Felicity Smoak in the Flash episode “All Star Team Up” even commented that “Central City was the fun city, while Starling was the serious one.”

So where is this rant going?  Well, I can appreciate the desire to step things up for the block buster films WB is planning, I don’t think they should ignore what they are doing on the small screen.  Tone Superman down, make him a little lighter, let the colors of the character pop, visually and figuratively.  Batman can still be dark and gritty, and still share the same universe as Superman.  I think that will ease a lot of fans who honestly want to bring their kids to a Superman or Batman flick.

As for the divergent universes, this can be salvaged by DC’s own history.  In writing this I came to peace with the fact that TV and Movie were going to be separate.  However this can be a good thing, because every now and then DC has to have their core universe butt heads with an alternate one and call it “Crisis”.  You have established two Flashes, a character that can move so fast he can alter time or, in some cases, pop straight out of his own universe into another.  Play on that.  Let that be your big cinematic moment.  Marvel will ramp things up to Civil War, and that’s what Marvel does.  They keep you grounded in politics that happen to involve super heroes.  Let DC’s defining moment be when you rip a hole in your own continuity and their characters have to deal with the fall out of not some legislation, but their own counterparts from other universes.

I can respect DC wanting to be different from Marvel, but please follow their footsteps in one area…respect your fans.

Should Chris Pratt play Indiana Jones?

 

I suppose the first question really is “Should there be another Indiana Jones film?”  To answer that, just look back a few years to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  While financially the film did “alright”, it has been raked across the fire-hot coals of the internet in terms of nonsensical plot points, poor CGI in a film series that has always relied on practical effects, and Shia LaBeouf. 

Starting from the top, let’s look at the “nonsensical plot points”.  When people talk about it, they almost always say the exact same thing: Indiana Jones could not have survived the refrigerator incident.  For those of you scratching your head, let me explain.  Early in the film, Indiana Jones is fleeing evil Russians led by Cate Blanchet doing her very best Natasha Fatale impersonation.  Seriously I spent all of her scenes expecting her to hatch a plan to “catch moose and squirrel”.  And I know I’m not alone.  Anyway, Indie runs into what he at first thinks is a quiet little town in the middle of the desert.  Turns out it’s a nuclear test site (it was within walking distance to Area 51, Indie.  I know you’re scared but use your brain.)  Once he discovers he’s about to become something between an overcooked chicken to a fine black cloud of dust, he does the only sensible thing.  He jumps into a lead lined refrigerator and is blown into the air, slams onto the ground and rolls violently several times before coming to a halt, only to be decontaminated later by government agents.  Now if you’ve ever spent any amount of time on the internet looking up this movie, you know how wrong it is.  For those of you who don’t, take a hot dog, wrap it in tinfoil, and put in your oven at 450 degrees.  That hotdog will not be in the same condition when you pull it out as when you put it in there.  Because heat makes metal hot, Indiana Jones might have been spared the radiation, but he would have been roasted alive, not to mention having every bone in his body shattered by the impact.

I will come back to this, trust me.

Outside of oven baked Harrison Ford, the next problem people have with the film is that it went the alien route rather than the supernatural route the series had in its previous three installments.  That’s really it.  That is the sum total of plot complaints I hear about the movie.

Rolling forward the next problem is the CGI in place of the practical effects the previous films had.

Prior to KotCS, the last film, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, came out in 1989.  Think about how good CGI was in 1989.  Think about how good the CGI in Jurassic Park was.  It’s easy to see how the producers could spare a few bucks on stunts by doing them in CGI, especially when your principle action hero is pushing 70 at the time of filming.  So I don’t decry them from using CGI.  I do complain that they used poor CGI on a completely stupid scene.  The second I saw Shia swinging from vines along side monkeys, I wanted to slap a producer in the face.  It was a waste of CGI, a waste of script writing, and a waste of an action scene.  By my calculation, that scene took about fifty cents of my money and I want that half dollar back.  I won’t get it, but I want it.

What was that other problem?  Oh, Shia LaBeouf.

You know what?  No he’s not the problem, or even “a problem”.  He’s an actor who gets paid to act in movies.  That’s it.  He signed up to be in an Indiana Jones movie, and for the most part he did a fine job.  What’s that, his character is more of a combination of plot conveniences than anything else?  Have you seen an Indiana Jones movie?  The sum total of the man’s life is a plot convenience.  Shia got offered a shot as a side kick in a Harrison Ford action flick and he jumped at it.  Its…not…his…fault.

He…did…his…job.  He got offered a role as an action hero.  FOUR TIMES!  This could have been the biggest career move in his life.  It’s not his fault they had him swinging with monkeys.  He had faith they knew what they were doing.

In short, stop being hateful because you never got your shot at being a side kick to Indiana Jones and leave the man alone.

Where was I?  Right, Chris Pratt.  Should he play Indiana Jones?  Sure, why not.

Oh, you need more than that.  Okay, go watch Guardians of the Galaxy.  Again, I say “sure, why not.”  He’s already played Han Solo.  But should they bother making another Indiana Jones movie?

Sure, why not.

Again, too little?

Well there are three directions they can take the franchise from this point on.  Keep going forward, either by changing Jones the same way you change James Bond, or by having him rejuvenated by the effects of the aliens/Holy Grail.  Remember, he drank from the Holy Grail once.  He was within spitting distance of ancient aliens after doing them a HUGE favor.  Who knows the results?

Option 2: Pratt/Jones’ adventures take place in between the gaps in the movies.  Remember that, according to the tie in fiction, Jones had a ton of adventures, not just the Ark, Stones, Cup, Skull adventures we were along for.  Pratt’s films could take place between these movies, which actually leaves a lot of room for story and character development.  Heck, we’ve played with aliens, why not do a little time traveling and have young Jones meet Shia’s character.  Skys the limit folks.

Option 3: Straight reboot.  Honestly if the only thing you can think to do with Indiana Jones is reboot the franchise all together; you might as well not bother at all.

The Crow vs Hollywood

 

If you are a fan of superhero movies, action movies, or revenge movies, you probably remember the 1994 (twenty-one years!) film starring Brandon Lee entitled “The Crow”.  For those of you who don’t remember, this featured Lee as musician Eric Draven.  Late one evening Mr. Draven and his fiancé are terrorized and ultimately murdered by a gang.  One year later, Draven returns from the grave, summoned by the titular bird, and exact bloody revenge for the crimes that went unpunished.  There is also a fight scene on top of a roof and a pseudo psychic lady.  And Tony Todd is there to, basically being Tony Todd.  It was the 1990’s.

So why do I bring it up now?  Well, the movie spawned a handful of sequels, most of which went straight to video, and one mediocre TV series.  Now, the problem with all of the sequels was that it tried to copy the original, as sequels often do.  You see, there is a common phenomenon when it comes to Hollywood where in when a movies does particularly well at the box office, the studios will immediately try to capitalize on it’s popularity by producing a film nearly identical in story structure with half the budget and none of the returning actors.  This is called cashing in or riding coattails.

What made the original film original was the same thing that made the following sequels terrible.  A good movie, I mean a really good movie, is like a lightning strike.  Its bright, its powerful, and it leaves an impression on everyone who witnessed it.  Sequels are kind of like getting a spot light and shining it in people’s faces and claiming it’s just as good as the original strike, even though everyone present knows full and well it’s not even close.

Back in 1990’s, and still today but especially back then, movie studios didn’t really care about how good the sequel was.  They relied strictly on name brand to carry their product and sat back waiting to count money.  Now what is inexplicable to me is how a studio can crank out a subpar follow up film (in the case of The Crow it was “The Crow: City of Angels”) which makes less money than the original and fans decry as being an inferior film, only to follow it up with progressively worse movies (The Crow: Salvation and The Crow: Wicked Prayer).  These films follow the exact same formula but consistently fail to capture the magic of the original.

The Crow got a decent follow up in the form of the Canadian TV series entitled “The Crow: Stairway to Heaven” which followed the original Crow, Eric Draven now played by Marc Dacascos.  This time, however instead of returning to the grave after his quest is completed, Draven continues to roam the earth fighting evil.  Why did this work when others didn’t?  Well, while fans of the original admitted that it was not the same caliber of the original, they had to admit that it respected the source material and actually tried to spin original stories.  In short, it didn’t do a straight up copy of the original.  It tried to be its own story.

That is where the studios failed.  When CoA failed to perform in the box office, they should have backed up and focused on telling a new, better story.  Not the same story, only with less budget. 

Modern sequels of popular movies have seemed to learn this lesson.  When follow ups to 1989’s “Batman” failed in the forms of “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin” Warner Brothers understood where they went wrong.  When “Batman Begins” rebooted the franchise, the follow up “The Dark Knight” was widely credited as being a much better film than the its predecessor.  The same thing happened with Iron-Man 2 and Captain America: the Winter Soldier.  They succeeded because they were going to tell new stories, explore new avenues of the narrative.  Spider-Man 2 was better than Spider-Man (Sam Rami series).  Iron-Man 3 was better than Iron-Man 2.  We’re moving, generally in the right direction with sequels, we’re continuing the story rather than rehashing the old one or telling a sub-par narrative with flashy lights to distract the audience. 

Now as I am typing this, they are working on a reboot of the franchise.  What is actually encouraging is that right now they are on the fourth or fifth attempt at rebooting it, which means they have time to get it right.  Does it mean they will use that time wisely, that’s debatable.