The Easter Egg they Didn't Need.

So on September 26^th Entertainment Weekly ran a quick blurb online about a Batman v Superman Easter Egg almost nobody noticed.  The question got raise, apparently, as to why Superman didn’t use his x-ray vision to see the kryptonite in Batman’s canisters.  Inspection of Batman’s prep work shows the canisters are marked with “Pb”, which is the elemental symbol for “lead”.  Most folks know that Superman can’t see through lead.  A neat little nod to explain the “why”.  Except it actually makes things a little more convoluted than that.

Namely, how would Batman know that Superman can’t see through lead?  On screen we don’t see Superman use his x-ray vision that much.  To my knowledge he doesn’t use it at all in Dawn of Justice, and he used it twice in Man of Steel, once as a kid, once after he turned himself over to the army.  In neither of those instances did it show Superman discovering his lead weakness.  Presumably there aren’t a lot of actual interviews where Superman divulges his weaknesses in this world.  Yes, Christopher Reeve’s Superman spilled the beans to a woman he’d known approximately 1 week, knowing she was going to publish literally everything he said, which shows a tremendous lapse in judgement on his part.  But that’s not the movie we’re talking about here.

No, in this one there is literally nothing in the context of the films we see that indicate that anyone knows he can’t see through lead, or if that weakness even made it into the films at all.  So there is no reason for Batman to use lead canisters to hold kryptonite.

Furthermore, Superman has no idea what kryptonite is.  He doesn’t encounter it until Batman gases him with it early in the fight.  Let’s say the canisters weren’t lead lined and he did look into them.  He would see a glowing green substance and that’s it.  He’d have no idea that this is the one thing that can totally wreck him.

EVEN FURTHER more, in the context of the fight itself it would be MORE beneficial for Batman to not have lead lined canisters, as lead negates kryptonite’s effect on Superman and if it was in, say, a leather pouch, literally anytime Superman got near him he would be physically weakened.

Now it’s entirely likely that Batman had the lead lined canisters not because of Superman’s weakness against lead, but because kryptonite is RADIOACTIVE, meaning that prolonged exposure to it will physically affect Batman himself and he doesn’t want to suffer radiation poisoning while fighting a living titan.

Basically there is a very good reason for Batman to use lead canisters, but it’s not the one everyone is apparently leaping to.

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.

Justice Leage: We are....Family?

Today I want to take a second or two to talk about a theory I recently saw on Nerdist on YouTube.  Specifically that Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and the Flash from the DC cinematic universe may actually be Kryptonians, or perhaps descendants of ancient Kryptonians.

The principle of the theory is that it would be easier to explain their amazing abilities by chalking them up to Kryptonian heritage, adding that they would be less affected or completely immune to Kryptonite because they had that weakness bred out over time.  The idea stems from two places.  The first is from Man of Steel where Jor-El, explaining the history of Krypton, talks about ancient Kryptonian colonies, citing why there was a Kryptonian scout ship located on Earth, buried under ice for thousands of years.  Okay, that’s our jumping off point which actually leads into the second place, Wonder Woman’s sword.

Nerdist pointed out in their video that there is some writing on the blade that is decidedly not ancient Greek and theorized that the writing isn’t simply decorative, since the production company spends a lot of time with attention to details.  Here’s what I could find as far as the blade was concerned.

 

They’re right, that’s not simply ancient Greek.  It actually looks like a conglomeration of several writing styles from the ancient world.  So here is it: It’s possible that the ancient Kryptonians who came to Earth in the scout ship over 5000 years ago encountered ancient humans and were considered gods due to their amazing powers.  Wonder Woman is, by accounts in the film, a daughter of Zeus, who could be the leader of the ancient Kryptonians, and probably figures as the chief god of any polytheistic religion.  Her amazing abilities stem from this heritage.  Atlantis, founded by an offshoot of these Kryptonians and Aquaman, again possibly the son of Poseidon, also half Kryptonian.  Barry Allen could be of the blood line of Kryptonians and only had his powers activated by a bolt of lightning due to them lying dormant for generations.

Sounds pretty straight forward, but there are a few hiccups in the theory.  Namely the writing style established for Kryptonians by Man of Steel

 

None of these symbols looks like anything on the sword for Wonder Woman.  Something should cross over but none of these symbols even come close to matching up.  If Kryptonians founded the writing style for Ancient Greece, you’d think at least a few of their symbols would have surfaced, but they are completely different.

The second major problem comes from a story telling aspect.  This theory, while straight forward is also incredibly lazy.  Part of what makes the Justice League such a great story telling platform is that you have a group of characters from a very diverse background.  Everyone brings something very different to the table and if you tie in three of your major characters, characters who historically have very unique back stories and make them all cousins, you start turning the JLA into the superhero equivalent of the mafia.  It just feels out of place and I hope they don’t do it.  I would hate for them to explain the extraordinary away in one hand wave as “They’re all basically Kryptonians.”

1997's Batman and Robin: A Second Look...

Hello I’m back!  After a devastatingly long hiatus, I’ve returned to give my totally unsolicited opinion about something nobody is really talking about any more.  As ya do on the internet.

But given that we are but a stone’s throw from Batman returning to the big screen via “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”, I thought I’d take a minute to talk about one of the less than reputable moments from the Caped Crusader’s movie career.  That’s right, a film so polarizing you either love it or…well you probably hate it.  1997’s “Batman and Robin”.

Taking place in what we are to assume is the same cinematic universe as Tim Burton’s films, this particular film stars none other than George Clooney and Chris O’Donnel as the respective dynamic duo.  Giving them an assist is Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl and filling in the roles of villains are Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, Arnold (get-to-da-choppah) Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, and Robert Swensen as Bane.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, and you don’t even have to be a fan of the comics to find it.  The acting was phoned in at its best, a crime since all of these actors are actually really talented, and the characters were dumbed down from literally every other incarnation.

Well, hang on…ANY other incarnation?

Part of what irked fans of the franchise, myself included, was that we remembered quite fondly the Michael Keaton films, and even gave a pass to “Batman Forever”.  Watching the Val Kilmer/Jim Carrey film again, one can see the signs of where the franchise was going, but hind sight is 20/20 after all.  Yet somehow we were expected to swallow this neon/black light circus as being part of the same “reality” that had a man electrocuted down to a charred skeleton and an umbrella twirling nightmare trying to kill children.

But that’s if you are trying to link all four films together, which you probably shouldn’t.  How it makes sense in my head is that “Batman” and “Batman Returns” is an adaptation of the comics of the 1980’s whereas the Joel Schumacher films are in fact re-imagining of the Batman series of the 1960’s.

If you take these two specific films away from the context of the franchise as a whole, and put them alongside the 1960’s television series, they match up remarkably well.  Suddenly you see that George Clooney isn’t playing Bruce Wayne/Batman, he’s playing Adam West playing Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy would have worked perfectly with Julie Newmar or Burgess Meredith, but not the Catwoman and Penguin of the film franchise.

I think if you give the latter two of the films another shot in that light, you might find that…they honestly won’t be any better, but they will make a lot more sense.

Even if you can’t find it in your heart to accept them as they are or in this new light, look on this bright side:  It came out along with “Steel” and “Spawn”, forming the unholy trinity that effectively killed comic book films and forced Hollywood to actually put some thought and effort into these properties.  This wouldn’t be rectified until 1998 when “Blade” came to theaters and reminded audiences that films based on comics could be awesome.

Hulk vs Superman (or) Keep Your Logic out of My Fandom!

So earlier in the week I posted two polls.  One was to the DC Comics fan page, the other to the Marvel Comics fan page, both via Google +.

The polls were pretty straight forward.  I detailed that, ignoring the decades of comic book continuity and factoring in only their current cinematic incarnations, who would win a fight between Man of Steel's Superman and Avengers: Age of Ultron's Hulk.

By the time I stopped counting votes it came out to 663, with 343 for the Hulk and 320 for Superman.  When you are considering internet numbers, that's pretty close, but a definitive win for the Hulk.  Yes, on the DC Page Superman won, and in the Marvel the Hulk won, but the real question is why, when all the votes were taken into account, did the Hulk win?

Is it because the fans believe him to be stronger?  Not necessarily.  Is it a complete lack of understanding of basic physics and biology?  Probably not, most of the folks who voted seemed to have a good grasp on high school level science.

It seems that fans gravitated towards the hero they could identify with more.  Superman has god-like powers, he's from another planet.  Bruce Banner, aka the Hulk, is a home town boy.  He grew up on Earth, he had a mother and father from the same general background as many of the voters.  He has emotional issues like many Americans today.  He has demons we can all relate to.  Very few of us can relate to being shipped away as our home was destroyed, only to land in a location where we found ourselves with fantastic powers but still ostracized by our new communities.  That doesn't happen...that often.

I could wax intellectual about how the characters physical abilities would decide this fight, but I don't know that we've seen the upper end of their powers yet.  In Avengers, Hulk took down a leviathan with one punch, but in Age of Ultron Iron-Man defeated him with a newer armor.  In Man of Steel Superman can fly in space, and destroyed a world engine by himself, but its not known if that's the upper end of his physical abilities, or is he just getting started, but it looks like Superman has more power, pound for pound, than the Hulk...at this time.

So yeah, I guess until writers can get into the head of Superman and find a way to make him relatable, tortured characters are just going to be more popular because they are more relatable to the target audience...us.

Thanks for reading

Why So Down on Superman?

                I’ve noticed a strong thread in comic book communities that are very pro-Batman, anti-Superman.  Some of this is tongue firmly in cheek good natured ribbing; some of it is down-right hateful.  So I got to thinking, why?  Why are so many people so willing to fly the flag of the Bat and stomp on the S-shield?

I suppose it comes down to a handful of factors:

1)      Superman is easier to pick apart.  Not only is he generally accepted as the first superhero, he is implausibility incarnate.  You can try to science your way around his powers, but when you step back and look at them, they are a ridiculous combination of plot conveniences smashed together and wrapped in blue tights. 

 

Batman, on the other hand, has no powers, and we are psychologically predisposed to relate to him because he’s “human”.  He is stupid rich, has an unlimited supply of improbable technology, a massive underground lair full of the craziest stuff you could put together, but it rolls back to him being human.  We may never be ludicrously wealthy, have a fleet of jet black vehicles and our own personal football stadium to park them in, but we can dream, and just being human we are part of the way there.

 

2)      Batman is the bad-boy.  I’ve heard it said, Batman is the one girls want to date, Superman is who women want to marry.  This stems from Batman’s tortured past and dark persona.  Girls tend to lean towards men they can mold, shape into someone better.  Superman is that better person.  He’s honest, kind, noble, heroic, and never sticks around for praise.  Batman is menacing, brooding, and more likely to beat the crap out of the guy who gooses you in a bar. Superman represents a level of stability that’s appealing to women looking to set down roots but still want the occasional adventure.  Batman, on the other hand, will globe trot at the drop of a hat and his life is constantly popping. 

 

3)      We want to be better than Superman.  Ever noticed how everyone can come up with a thousand ways Batman can beat Superman.  Some folks can rattle them off the top of their head.  Some of these are severely sinister plots that require hours of intense thought.  This stems from our “mortal” insecurity.  We want to think that if push came to shove, we could bring down the Man of Steel because he makes us feel inadequate.  “Because I’m Batman…” isn’t just a clever punchline, it’s a catch all to make us all feel better than Superman.  What makes matters worse, at least for John Q. Human, is that Superman never boasts about his powers.  He’s calm and quietly awesome without effort.  Batman has to “work” for everything.

 

What is kind of sad is when you try to counter the argument of “Batman can beat Superman…” by saying “But Superman can…” “NO, Batman already won.” “Yeah, but if Superman just…” “BATMAN’S AWESOME SUPERMAN SUCKS!!!” (Actual conversation)  Some refuse to believe that Superman could be anything more than Batman’s bitch.  (By the way, hurricane force super breath invalidates like 99% of what Batman can do.)

 

What the whole debate actually boils down to: who is writing the story?  Guys like Frank Miller will always have Batman win because Batman.  Other writers will side with Superman and the fight will be over before it gets started.  Looking at Dawn of Justice trailer, I was thinking

“Do you bleed?  You w…” and Superman blows Batman into the next county with just a quick puff of breath.

But I may just be saying that because I love Superman.

Later!

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.

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.