Can a DC Movie Universe be Successful?

Obviously from prior posts I'm a bit of a comics nerd. I adore storytelling, and the medium of comics lends to storytelling very well. They are the new pulp fiction, the new serial, the new short story; published monthly, and later collected and published in larger volumes. Lately, comics have become fodder for other mediums. We get to watch comics unfold on both the big and small screens, live action and animated. It's awesome.

Of the top 5 comics publishing companies, Marvel and DC have the biggest stakes in licensing material for non-print media, and Marvel has been crushing it with their massively popular shared movie/television universe. I've seen everything they've produced (except Agents of Shield and the Inhumans because I watch good television) and they're stuff is fantastic.

However, I am, and have always been a DC guy. 

Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and a plethora of larger than life heroes, several decades older, at times darker and more philosophical than Marvel. They always seemed to me, since I started reading comics, to be more grown up. There are clear analogies to Neitzsche, and Machiavelli in the three major characters. I agree with Laurence Maslon and Dr. Kate Roddy when they claim superheroes are our new mythologies. DC characters specifically fit into the classic myth versions of heroes. They are kings, and princesses, and aristocrats, rich one-percenters with money, and education, and privilege who go through journeys and defeat monsters in order to save the general public. It is a shame Warner Brothers, the DC parent company, is so bad at storytelling.

pulp fiction mythologies

This seems to be the real success with Marvel's shared universe. They write good stories first, and then tie them together. They took their time with the project, a whole decade to make films, and thread commonalities between them. They made good casting decisions, allowed writers and creators to create good plots and interactions for the characters, and never appeared to try to do too much in any one film (except maybe Civil War and Infinity War).

living large

The Cosmonaut Variety Hour put it this way: while Warner Brothers and DC were busy trying to make movies based on a few already existing plots from the comics, Marvel allowed writers with a knowledge of the entire canon to create new stories and plots based on story and character elements. Most of the time the Marvel movie writers get it right, like in Iron Man, and the Avengers, but sometimes we got Iron Man 3. Meanwhile, DC is the complete opposite, creating movies like Justice League, Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman which were colossal messes, but sometimes they make Wonder Woman just to give us fans a little hope. 

The problem seems to be Warner Brothers' decision to do what Marvel did, build a shared cinematic universe. Instead of doing it in the logical way of gradually introducing heroes in their own stand alone films and then connecting them all for a blockbuster crossover event, they decided to do it backwards and introduce all their characters in one blockbuster movie and then break off into solo films. Why would you decide to do that? The only reason I can think of is just to be different, I guess. Overloading one movie with so many major characters makes for a bad movie, and the reason we never had an Avengers or Justice League movie decades ago. Marvel's plan was a huge gamble based on contemporary movie making thinking.

The good news is DC did manage to build a pretty decent television universe on the CW network. The only thing seeming to hold it back from being Marvel-sized is the inability to use Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman on the live-action small screen. I have no idea what the rationale for this decision/rule but everyone would love to see an Arrowverse Batman.

My solution for DC/Warner Brothers... Continue your movie franchise, as it does make money, but put all your effort into television. Comics and television are a natural fit. Comics are serialized issue by issue with large story arcs playing out over several issues. Television is serialized episode by episode, with large story arcs playing out over a season. Bring in Batman and Superman, and Wonder Woman! Give people what they want, not a show like Gotham which is Batman without Batman, or Smallville which is Clark Kent before he becomes Superman, but not really, or whatever Lois and Clark was (literally no one asked for these shows, stop trying to be clever and just do the show we want). Also, Wonder Woman? Can we get a follow up to the 1970s show, please?

Just give them what they want!

DC is actually really good at their animated television shows, it cant be that difficult to do live action. In fact, Marvel has already proved quality television can be done in short miniseries with the Defenders franchise of shows. 

Friendly Neighborhood Debate: Best Villains Ever?

Recently, a friend of mine, also with a silly little blog, wrote a post about the Definitive Top 10 Fictional Villains of Pretty Much Everything (in my Opinion). You can go over to Wordpress and read from the Waiting in Suspencer blog right now if you choose. I don't usually do this, but here is my rebuttal, because quite frankly, I enjoy a good debate and comparisons of fictional characters is enjoyable.

The Rules:

• One villain only from any one franchise. For example, even though He-man and the Masters of the Universe has several villains to choose from, you have to pick only one from that franchise.
• Anti-Heroes don't count. In the words of the Suspencer, "If you're going to be bad, be bad". So, none of this Catwoman, Venom, Man with No Name flipfloppy bullshit.
• Villains are pulled from all fictional mediums, right? So, film, comics, literature, they all count as long as it's fictional. So, Hitler, even though he pops up in all mediums and even things like Castle Wolfenstein and Danger 5 where he barely resembles actual historic Hitler, doesn't count. That would be too easy.

Alternative Facts

Starting from the bottom, without further ado, here is my rebuttal to the Top Ten Fictional Villains of Pretty Much Everything. I'll start at the bottom with number 10.

TEN: Darth Vader

Anakin "Darth Vader" Skywalker, the man Hooper X once called the "Blackest Brother in the Galaxy", starts off the list on the bottom. I agree with my friend here. If Disney decides to uncannonize the prequels and redo them, Vader may rise through the list. But as it stands now, knowing it didn't take much aside from jealous love to turn him to the Dark Side makes him kind of pathetic. Vader may border on the Anti-Hero, which, according to the rules, puts him out of contention anyway.

There are some problems with Vader's evilness that I still don't understand. He is a towering presence, "more machine than man" with telekinetic abilities. Why are Imperial generals so quick to dismiss him? True they get force-choked into submission, but seriously, at the time of A New Hope, he surely has the reputation as the dude in charge that you don't fuck with. All that time of being terrifying and your subordinates still don't respect and fear you?

Also, technically, he isn't even the real main antagonist in the entire story. Palpatine, Darth Sidious, is the driving force behind all the evil in the universe, supposedly. He is a master manipulator and is able to turn and control one of the most force sensitive people in the universe, and use him as a weapon. We'll get to characters like Palpatine later though. For now, being subservient gets Vader moved to the  back of the bus.

NINE: HIM

Yes, that is a transgendered clown looking dude with crab pincers for hands. And yes, it is a villain from the cartoon the Powerpuff Girls. Shut up, and let me explain. This particular villain is really the only character the Powerpuff Girls actually fear. He is called "so sinister, so evil, so scary, so horribly vile that even the utterance of his name strikes fear in the hearts of men". Not bad for a red skinned dude in a tutu and heels. He is some kind of demon, perhaps THE demon. Negative feelings, like those that give Vader the power of the Dark Side, also empower Him. Like the Hulk, more negative feelings mean stronger powers. He can possess children's toys and speak through them, which is all sorts of horror movie creepy. Also telekinetic. Also can raise people from the dead. Also controls monsters.

This particular villain is so out of place on this show. It's a cartoon made for kids starring 3 super powered child heroes. The other villains are a green monkey with a giant brain, a pink fuzzy big foot thief, and a stuck-up rich girl princess. The Lord of Darkness kind of stands apart from the usual suspects on this show. It would be like if Vader suddenly turned up on an episode of My Little Pony.

The reason HIM is on this list is because he is truly terrifying in an otherwise silly kids show. Maya Angelou once said people forget what you say, but never forget how you make them feel. And that is why HIM is scary. Laura Duca from the HuffPost wrote that Him is "the most terrifying villain to ever take a bath on the small screen", so bad that we forget he is probably the "first plausible transgendered character" on television.

MW Bychowski explained HIM being so terrifying because of this inability to sort him out into a normative category. She writes, "Terror as well as wonder can be created by making bodies illegible to our frameworks of understanding". The dragqueen makes for a wonderful visual of terror.

EIGHT: Cruella De Vil

I know, at first this doesn't appear to be that terrible of an evil villain. But just like HIM, let me explain. Firstly, the character is not just the Disney portrayed witch with a demented fur fetish who looks like Skeletor's mom. She's originally from the book by Dodie Smith, and like all Disney properties, she's way way worse. She is an heiress to a modest family fortune, treats people as beneath her, and kidnaps puppies in order to skin them and make a coat. She needs the puppy fur, you see, because if they get older, dog hair becomes too coarse to make comfy coats. Also, she has a Siamese cat that she detests, but keeps it because it's valuable. But every time the cat has kittens, the litter gets drowned... so they aren't that valuable, I guess.

She makes the list for living up to her namesake. Cruelty for the sake of beauty and vanity makes her pretty much a garbage person. The fact that she is willing to destroy life not only for the sake of her own material desires, but also because those lives are inconvenient makes her a monster. Up until now our villains take lives for specific reasons, this woman does it for seemingly no reason at all except convenience.

SEVEN: Ernst Stavro Blofeld

From the mind of Ian Flemming comes a character who became a trope. As far as evil dudes go, Blofeld is pretty much your average super villain. He is the head of a worldwide criminal/terrorist organization which has its fingers in racketeering, espionage, grand theft, blackmail, murder, and of course world domination. The arch villain mastermind look, the middle aged, bald white dude with facial scars, and a pet white cat has become the defacto supervillain, used in Inspector Gadget, Austin Powers, and Pokémon, among others.

SIX: Bill Sikes

The bottom half of this list is rounded out by Charles Dickens's character from the wonderful world of the London underground in mid 1800s. Oliver Twist, the protagonist of the novel of the same name, is an orphan who gets introduced to and mixed up in the grimy criminal underground of London by Fagin. Fagin is a nasty dude who trains homeless boys as pickpockets, and he is pretty despicable. But Bill Sikes is a monster that even Fagin fears.

On the list this high purely for his savagery, Bill Sikes's story goes like this: presumably he was once one of Fagin's pickpockets, but now a grown man, he's become a burglar, breaking and entering. The man is described as a rough, barbaric man, aggressive and violent. He is the epitome of domestic abuse. He beats his girlfriend Nancy to death after believing she snitched on him. In the end, he hangs himself trying to escape from an angry mob.

While not sounding like a villain that should surpass Vader, or HIM, or even Cruella De Vil, the capacity for this man to murder, in the way that Dickens describes, tops even the cat drowner. He is an uncontrollable, amoral force of brutality. Sikes is the prototype for every muscle bound monster full of rage. He is an unremorseful, angry, unpredictable son of a bitch. And that is why he's up so high.Sikes is the realistic Jekyl and Hyde, only there is no Dr. Jekyl.

FIVE: Kurtz

I think, as a species, one of the most terrifying things is the thought of madness. And Kurtz, from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, embodies madness. The story, in a nutshell, is about an ivory trader settled in the heart of the Congo, in Africa. The man suffers from delusions of grandeur, convinces the local population to deify him, worship him. Madness overtakes him.

Kurtz embodies Imperialism, and all the white burden atrocities associated with Colonialism. He is Columbus. He is the Triangle Trade. The partitioning of India, Apartheid, the Trail of Tears, he is all these things. He is the prototype for every villain who blurs the lines of sanity in order to fulfill ambition. Anyone who feels entitled to build success on the backs of other "inferior brutes".

Insanity, I think, is part of every good dark villainous character. The idea that a person can be betrayed by their own mind is frightening, and the best villains seem to be the ones that are no longer playing with a full deck of cards. Madness is a central theme in R Scott Bakker's novels. Sanity is debated in Alice in Wonderland. The best villains in A Song of Ice and Fire fall into madness. The Joker, the best villain in the comic book medium, is built around the idea of insanity. Kurts is a great exercise in mental fragility and what that can mean to a society.

FOUR: Hannibal Lector

Speaking of crazy people... Hannibal Lector comes in a number four. Fear is a major theme to my list, and Hannibal is one scary guy. Hannibal has been called the King of Hollywood Psychopaths. Samuel Leistedt, a forensic psychiatrist, lists "high intelligence, a vain cat-like demeanor, a prestigious career, a calm always in control attitude, and an unrealistic exceptional skill at killing people" as traits, a list of traits probably not found amongst your normal, average psychopath. In fact, Leistedt doesn't believe this sort of "elite psychopath" can truly exist and actually be a real psychopath in the clinical sense. This is probably why, in Red Dragon, they make it very clear he doesn't fit any known psychological profile.

Hannibal is a cannibal. The name rhymes. It's cute. William Arens wrote that charges of cannibalism by one society to another is a way to discredit the other society as inferior and set up a perception of cultural inferiority. Mythogical folklore also establishes cannibalism as taboo, often changing the cannibal into an actual monster, like the Algonquian wendigo, or the Arabic ghoul. In Germanic mythology, witches are said to eat people as well. Basically, in most cultures, eating another human being is probably the worst thing you can do.

Hannibal is something out of a true nightmare. He is highly intelligent, a psychiatrist and surgeon with an eidetic memory. He speaks 7 languages. Also he murders without hesitation, especially when he feels someone has been rude to him, or if they have poor manners. This is what makes him terrifying. He is smarter than you, quicker than you, stronger than you, and cares nothing for societal norms like "no killing", or "don't eat people". And he hides in plain sight, a sophisticated gentleman in a trustworthy white collar profession.

Hannibal has been the blueprint for every "elite psychopath" character created since. His traits have even leaked into newer portrayals of older characters like DC's Joker.

THREE: Iago

In my friend's original post on his own blog, he cited this character from a movie based on Shakespeare's Othello. This made no sense to me. If the character of Hugo from O is based on Iago from Othello, and the list is the best villains from all mediums, why not pick the source? A play is a fictional medium, so it isn't off limits. Anyway, Iago has become an archetype for villainy. Much like the other people on the list, he is so good at being evil, his traits get copied by everyone. Hugo from O is Iago, just in a different adaptation.

In case you aren't familiar, Iago is a masterful manipulator. During the play, he becomes angry when he doesn't get promoted by his boss, Othello. Othello promotes another dude, Cassio, instead. So, Iago decides to ruin everyone's lives. Not only does he get Cassio demoted, but then he makes it seem like Cassio and Othello's wife are having an affair, which leads to Othello killing her. Then Iago murders his accomplice, and the girl that reveals his plot. He does go to prison, but Othello commits suicide.

The Iago character, the trustworthy aide, the right hand man who turns into the treacherous unsuspected mastermind antagonist can be found everywhere in fiction. Every surprise double cross, every double agent, every seemingly humble friend hiding a vicious knife is a shade of Iago.

TWO: Professor James Moriarty

Probably the greatest of all the villains ever in fiction, Professor James Moriarty has become Sherlock Holmes's greatest and final foil. He is called the Napoleon of Crime. Like Iago, Moriarty is a master manipulator. But unlike Iago, he never actually commits any crimes. Moriarty is the head of an intricate crime ring, whose plots, designs, and leadership create sinister crimes. Moriarty is genius level smart, keeping himself from ever being implicated in his own schemes. Holmes states he is aloof from "general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self effacement" that even by being accused, says Holmes, he would sue and win and ruin your life legally.

If you took Iago, a malicious, conniving, backstabbing character beyond suspicion, and turn him from a jealous revenge schemer into a cold, calculating mob boss you would have Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle perfected the Iago archetype, and the only point of this creation was to kill off Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty influenced every white suited mobster criminal ever in fiction.

ONE: Sauron

Mythology and theology associated with it intrigue me. Which is why Star Wars appeals to me, as it is the mythology of the hero. JRR Tolkien created his own universe, complete with languages, mythologies and cultures. This creates a kind of depth that fantasy never had before. Sauron may seem like an obvious number one cop-out, but I can't think of another more well-rounded villain with this much depth, or influence.

Sauron is the primary antagonist of the Lord of the Rings. However, he never actually shows up in the novels, he is only a spirit in the form of a giant eye of fire atop a tower. The Eye of Sauron seems to have limited Omniscience, and is tied to the One Ring of Power.

The mythology of Middle Earth includes a parable for the existence of Evil, and Sauron plays a role. The Eru, the god-like being who creates everything, created the Ainur to help him with creation. One of the Ainur, called Melkor, turns bad and enters creation to corrupt it. Other Ainur also enter creation and become Valar (gods) and Maiar (wizards) in order to protect creation. One of these Maiar is known as Sauron. Melkor corrupts Sauron and makes him his Right Hand. Together they capture, torture and corrupt a band of elves, creating the first orcs.

So, there we have it. Definite parallels to Judeo-Christian mythos. The fallen archangel becomes the dark lord, creates demons and corrupts the innocent. Sauron actually seems to have influenced most of the other villains on this list, and some of the ones not on the list that maybe ought to be. For example:

Darth Vader. Corrupted by another greater evil. The Dark Lord of the Dark Lord, Vader carries out his master's bidding, much like Sauron carried out Melkor's bidding, until Melkor was cast out into the abyss.

Voldemort. Not only is Voldemort the Dark Lord that corrupts the wizarding world by championing the Dark Arts, but he imbues pieces of his soul into artifacts. The One Ring sure does sound like a horcrux to me. Also, Voldemort spends most of his time in those Harry Potter books trying to piece himself back together after having being incorporeal for decades.

Sauron has become the defacto archetype of the distant impending darkness. There are too many fanstasy/sci-fi stories that revolve around protagonists trying to keep antagonists from reintroducing some unfathomable ancient evil.

Sauron is the ultimate scheming, manipulating, behind the scenes planner. He is a giant eye ball on fire, and yet he can orchestrate the war to end the world.

Nerds Cannot Be Satisfied: Superman Edition

The new Warner Brothers/DC movie just came out this weekend. The reviews were much like Man of Steel reviews from 2013. No one has anything good to say about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Basically, if you believe all the reviews, this movie is an overhyped, gauche trainwreck.

To be fair, we kind of all saw this coming as the movie was being made and stuff was being leaked. My first clue that Warner Brothers was going to not be successful like their competition (Marvel Studios and Disney) was their shared universe plan. Instead of doing a few solo films which culminate in one big super team-up (like the Avengers) they were going to do the team up first and then split up into solo films.

Apparently the WB never learns lessons from past experiences. The large team-up movie always sacrifices something that makes a movie good. There are so many characters and so much going on, that either plot, character development, or dialogue (or all three) suffers. Marvel found a solution to this by developing characters in their own solo films, and then combining those characters later on. The characters continue to develop relationships in subsequent movies. Warner/DC decided they had to be different, and their film suffered.

The reviews hate on basically two fronts. The first being the pace and plot of the film, which on the surface doesn't seem to make sense. The second is how uncharacteristic the characters are.

I agree with the first point. There are basically two stories being told in this movie, the Batman story, and the Superman story. Two main plotlines are being told at the same time from two different perspectives. These perspectives then collide in the first part of the third act. The reason the plot makes no sense is because it's two stories being told at the same time, and neither has enough time to establish itself. So instead of one good well rounded plot, we have two semi-realized stories competing with each other. Both of which create their own plot holes. On top of that, there are other side plots and half plots thrown in to add to the confusion.

So, there are problems with the film and it's writing, and plot. However, how the characters are portrayed is not one of them. Comic book fans are the loudest, most difficult to please critics in the history of media. This film once again proves it. The main complaint seems to be "Superman is not Superman enough".

The Man of Steel has had a publication history of 78 years. Since his inception in 1938, Superman gained the powers of flight, xray vision, and heat vision and became bullet proof in addition to his super strength and super speed. He was joined by other super family members like Supergirl, Superwoman, Powergirl, a super dog and a super horse, a few clones, and an entire miniature Kryptonian city in a bottle. He married Lois Lane. Superman died in 1992, came back to life in 1993, and lost his powers altogether for a time in 2006. Superman evolved from an aggressive vigilante who killed, committed arson, and fought the police and national guard to a reserved, responsible protector of justice who upholds the law and works with the authorities.

My point to all this is Superman, like anyone who has been around for almost 80 years, has not been the same and deserves to be written as a more complex, multidimensional character. The fact that Superman has so many superpowers, and is essentially unflawed and indestructible has set him up to be an uninteresting and unrelatable failure. Writing interesting Superman stories is difficult. There are really only two stories to tell. The first is Superman meets another overly super powered man/thing and they punch each other silly until Superman comes out on top. The second is Superman has an existential crisis about how he's the last of his kind, or wrestles with his absolute power and responsibility.

Fans of comics want to see the comic up on a big screen. But which story? There are 78 years of Batman and Superman stories, and not all of them are good. The Superman in Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice is certainly the same Superman from the comics, it may take some looking, but you'll find bits and pieces of him popping up in storylines all throughout his publication history. Personally I would rather have the Henry Cavill Superman badass than the Christopher Reeve no personality Superman, or the Superman straight outa Dragnet that was on television in the 50s.

Instead of complaining about Superman, fans ought to be excited about the awesome Wonder Woman performance. Saying she stole the show and saved the film would be an understatement. I'm kind of disappointed we have to wait until 2017 for her solo film.

The more I think about this film, the less I believe it to be a bad movie. Could the writing have been better? Probably. Could the reason Batman and Superman stop fighting and team up been more realistic? Yes. Are there parts of the film that seemed unnecessary? I can think of a couple dream sequences that could have been left out. But otherwise, the film holds up, and delivers what the obvious title promises.

Nerds can not be Satisfied: Ninja Turtle Edition

This emergence of geek culture has been pretty awesome for everyone that enjoys comics. We have actual well-made films adapted from comic book heroes now. Which is huge. In case you forgot, before Marvel started taking more responsibility for their live action properties, we had to watch crap like Captain America, and Lou Ferrigno's Hulk tv show. And the Super Friends. And Joel Schumacher's garbage bin of Batman films.

This exists.

My point is, die hard comic book fans had much to complain about up until recently. Now there are actual comic book writers producing comic book movies, and although there are things that need to be changed and rearranged for film, there are fewer executives forcing major changes to characters and plots that they don't care about or understand. Comic nerds ought to be rejoicing. But, as with everything, people forget things. Like how much progress has been made.

maybe this will help those memories...

I bring this up because, recently the trailer for the second Michael Bay produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was released. Predictably, it was met with disdain from old school TMNT fans. I don't understand any of the arguments meant to smear the film that hasn't even been released yet. I get why fanboys distrust Michael Bay (the Transformers franchise sucks). But I really can't understand what fans of the original Turtles comics, or cartoon show, expect.

Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic in 1984. Soon this comic was turned into an animated cartoon series in 1987. The comic (and cartoon) is about four people-sized mutated turtles who live in a sewer in New York, and practice martial arts with their surrogate father, a giant talking rat.

The plot of this story revolves around their unending battle with a secret ninja cabal led by The Shredder, an evil samurai warrior who is also in league with a race of extra-dimensional talking brain aliens. Also, there is a rotating cast of anthropomorphized mutants that all seem to know martial arts, both villains, and allies.

There is a full list of supporting characters on Wikipedia. Click the picture to the left to see for yourself. It's pretty nuts. Aside from four giant ninja turtles, a rat kung fu master, and a race of brains, there is a mutant mosquito, sentient garbage, a giant talking eyeball, Pizza the Hut from Spaceballs, a sumo wrestling hamster and several other mutant lizards, frogs, and small woodland creatures. Clearly, this series is a well grounded, realistic comic book franchise that's not at all silly or ridiculous.

Critics of the 2014 movie didn't like how the new digital turtles looked compared to the rubbery suits worn by actors in the 1990 film. This is a little like Godzilla fans pining away for the days of b-movie magic. These new turtles actually look like turtles, instead of green blobs with masks.

a little side by side comparison...

Perhaps nostalgia for the "good ole days" gets in the way of actual honest criticism for older films. 
Not only did the 1990 film showcase actors in foam suits with goofy fish mouths, but the plot itself doesn't really make any sense either. Four giant turtles are required to stop a crime wave in New York City? Pretty sure if the largest police department in the United States is having trouble with a gang of criminal ninjas, four freaks with ancient hand combat weapons isn't really going to make a difference.

To be fair the plot to the 2014 remake isn't much better, but at least there is a super villain with a super villainous scheme, one that is far better than just leader of a gang of pickpockets. The Shredder in the 1990 film is no better than samurai Fagin covered in knives.

The 1991 sequel is even worse. As I recall, fans were expecting Bebop and Rocksteady from the comic and cartoon show. But what we received was The Secret of the Ooze with Tokka and Rahzar, quite possibly the worst comicbook movie villains of all time. This new film, Out of the Shadows, promises to have the real Bebop and Rocksteady, and Krang. So... we finally get what we asked for 25 years ago.

The franchise has always been about silly nonsensical adventures of teenage, pizza eating, sewer dwelling, ninjitsu testudines, and their giant rat karate master and all their various mutant allies and enemies. Of course the films are going to reflect the source material. Is the 2014 movie perfect? Probably not. Is it better than the movies from the early '90s? Absolutely. Does it follow the source material in all it's wacky, cheesy glory? Not completely, but that's ok, because we all want an actual good movie, not Batman and Robin.

Quick as a Flash: TV Predictions

I think by now this blog has established that I, like many people recently now that comic books and their characters have become mainstream pop culture, am a huge nerd.

With the premier of Arrow on the CW, DC comics jumped into television to great success, and followed that show up with the Flash in a shared universe.  This makes far more sense to me then trying to make comics into movie franchises.

One of the biggest concerns with superhero films is the difficult task of building characters and putting them into interesting plots that have to resolve within 2 hours.  Blockbuster films are expensive, and are slow to create.  There have been years between Iron Man movies.  Meanwhile the comic book is continuously written and published at least once a month.

Television shows, however, debut once a week for several weeks in a row, and (as long as it doesn't get canceled by talentless studio execs) there are only months between seasons.  Television episodes, as in comic books, can have stand alone stories but also over-arching season long plots.  The serial nature of television meshes much better with the serial nature of comic books.

The first season of The Flash debuted in October.  I like this show.  Grant Gustin is a great Barry Allen, and the writers have surrounded our titular hero with a good group of supporting characters, much like Oliver Queen has in Arrow.  The first season is more than halfway done, and it's already been full of comic book Easter eggs, foreshadowing, and character reveals; plenty of stuff for nerdy fans to freak out over.  They even make some nods to the Flash tv show from 1990 by casting that show's Flash as Barry Allen's father.

A good example of the foreshadowing, is the slow reveal that the character Dr Harrison Wells is probably actually the character Eobard Thawne better known as Professor Zoom, the Reverse Flash.  The Reverse Flash is one of Barry Allen's greatest foes.  He is Joker-level evil, and uses time travel through the Speed Force to extract revenge.  There is another character on the show, a detective named Eddie Thawne.  I'm betting Harrison Wells is Eddie Thawne's descendant from the future.  It is very possible that Eddie also becomes the Reverse Flash. After all, there are a few in the comics.

In addition to the ultimate Flash nemesis, there are many other villain characters to be introduced.  Captain Cold and his buddy Heat Wave already appeared in two episodes, and Captain Cold's sister was introduced, possibly revealing her to be Lisa Snart, the Golden Glider.  We also saw the Pied Piper appear twice, and the Weather Wizard, with the possibility of a second Weather Wizard appearing later.  Captain Boomerang was the antagonist of the Flash/Arrow crossover.  The Girder has already debuted in the show and killed off.  Blackout, the Mist, Plastique, and Multiplex have also starred in their own episodes.  Also, although he hasn't been officially introduced, Gorilla Grodd has been teased since the pilot episode.

However, it hasn't all been villains.  Ronnie Raymond is a character on the Flash, posthumously referred to as a member of the Star Labs team that perished in the accelerator explosion during the pilot episode.  However, as every good comicbook nerd knows, Ronnie Raymond is half of the superhero known as Firestorm.  Firestorm has since made an appearance, and recently it has been revealed that Martin Stein (the other half of Firestorm) also existed in this universe, and is probably fused to Ronnie Raymond.

Speaking of Ronnie Raymond...  Caitlin Snow, played by the very pretty Danielle Panabaker, was his girlfriend, and has been very distraught at losing him to the accelerator accident.  In the comics, Caitlin Snow is Killer Frost, a villain with the ability to naturally create and manipulate ice, and who craves heat in order to survive.

The Flash writers have already revealed that eventually Danielle Panabaker's character will become Killer Frost.  How this will happen, of course, is up for speculation.  I predict that Caitlin Snow will end up in a crossfire between the Flash, Firestorm, and Captain Cold and get shot with the cold gun.  Firestorm will attempt to save her with his abilities to rearrange atomic structures.  He saves her life, but at the same time changes her into Killer Frost, the heat vampire.  Of course, she has a mental break and blames both the Flash and Firestorm for making her into a monster.

Cisco Ramon is also from the comics.  The superhero Vibe debuted in 1984 as a member of the Justice League Detroit.  He was also a terrible Latino stereotype, and was the first JLA character ever to be killed off.  Vibe has sonic manipulation powers, similar to the Pied Piper.  My prediction:  like Caitlin Snow, Cisco is caught up in a battle between the Flash and the Pied Piper (already happened once) and somehow gets vibration manipulating powers as a consequence.  Only instead of becoming a villain, he becomes a hero.

Of course, only time will tell if I called all the shots, and spoiled several seasons of The Flash.  We haven't even seen Harrison Wells/Reverse Flash/Professor Zoom be fully revealed yet.  It's going to be awesome.

DC seems to be on their way to creating a shared television universe much like Marvel has done with their movies, only in a shorter amount of time.  DC has been able to introduce Green Arrow, the Flash, the Huntress, the Atom, The Black Canary, and Firestorm, and elude to Batman, Vibe and the Blue Beatle.  The future looks bright for DC fans.  

Ghetto Gotham will be Televised

Fox announced a new television series about Batman, sort of.  Gotham, a series about Gotham City before Batman will air sometime this year.  Soon.  I've seen the first trailer.  This post is about what I'm hoping to see in this new show.



When I heard the plan was to do a show not about Batman, but about the city of Gotham and James Gordon, I dismissed it as boring.  There were already comics written about this concept, and while Gotham Central, Gotham Nights, and Batman: GCPD may have been interesting, they didn't sell well because fans want to read about the Batman, not the police department.

However, after seeing the trailer, I changed my mind.  This series could be interesting.  This could be successful like Arrow.  But it also could turn into Lois and Clark, or the Muppet Babies if realistic continuity is thrown out the window.  This could be done well, though, and here is how...

In the comics, there is already a history of Gotham crime.  This is pretty much laid out in Batman: Year One by Frank Miller, and The Long Halloween and Dark Victory by Jeph Loeb.  The first thing I want to see is the rise of the Falcone and Maroni crime families.  Jeph Loeb covers the fall of organized crime in Gotham, and when Batman arrives, they are already well established.

In the trailer, we get to see a few villains before they become villains.  Poison Ivy, Scarecrow and Catwoman make appearances, and so does the Penguin.  The second thing I hope we get to see are some of Gotham's 1% families.  The Penguin is Oswald Cobblepot, and the Cobblepots, according to the comics, are an old rich Gotham family, like the Waynes.  Other families include the Elliots (Thomas Elliot aka Hush), the Kane's (Kate Kane aka Batmwoman), and the Sionis's (Roman Sionis aka the Black Mask).  I hope to see all of these families at least mentioned.

The fact that certain characters are mentioned outright in the trailer, suggests that origin stories will be told throughout the series.  But there are Batman villains who are far older.  Therefore, the second thing I hope to see are the older villains.  Jason Woodrue becomes the Floronic Man, but before that, he mentors Pamela Isley and is responsible for turning her into Poison Ivy.  Ra's Al Ghul is ancient.  Dr. Hugo Strange is an older man when he first encounters Batman.  Amadeus Arkham founded Arkham Asylum, and went mad and died far before Batman arrived.  All of these characters would be great to see, if only in cameos.

In conclusion, I just hope this show doesn't suck.  And if it turns out to be awesome, I hope Fox doesn't decide to cancel it prematurely, like it has done to a bunch of potentially great shows.

Superheroes!

Recently, and by recently I mean the last decade or so, comic book superheroes have become extremely popular.  This can be attributed to the Batman and Marvel film franchises that have grossed several hundred million dollars in revenue.  The superhero movie trend may have become such a huge phenomenon that fans and film critics will start to get turned off by the shear volume of output from the genre.

Along with this new success in film, comes new fans.  Because these films are blockbuster action movies dressed up in superhero costumes, the number of people that are subjected to the characters and stories is vastly larger than the number of people who go to the comic book store on Wednesdays.  To me, and probably to many people who write and work on comics, this is a great thing.  More new fans!

At the moment, only the most popular comic book heroes have seen big screen time, or have appeared in the explosion of new animated series.  This post is about my favorite heroes, some of whom will never be seen in their own films, or series.

A few things about my particular tastes, before I dive right in.   Comic books turned me off early on for one reason.  It seemed that in order to be able to read and understand what was going on in the latest issue of Spiderman, I had to know first what had happened several dozen issues ahead of time.  I couldn't just buy an issue and read an episode about a superhero that had a beginning, middle and end (climax/resolution), like most serial television shows, or short stories.  So it appeared that the comic book culture was pretty exclusive and difficult to join.

Recently, that has changed.  The comic book industry has implemented some things to draw in new readers, without alienating their old school comic book readers/culture.  Both DC and Marvel have done a series of reboots.  DC has invested in Year-one stories that retell origins without changing contemporary storylines.  Marvel started a whole new continuity called the Ultimate Universe.  Using the multiverse theory of cosmology has allowed both publishing companies the ability to allow writers to do anything they want with characters without necessarily changing continuity.

However, at the time, I did my due diligence to understand what was going on, learned who other characters were, where they came from, what sorts of things happened to the characters since their inception, etc.  At a certain point, the continuity becomes so dense, and complicated, that it becomes not worth the time and energy spent to make sense of it all.  Sometimes the characters jump the shark so much that they flirt with comical ridiculousness.  Usually this turn happens once the writers introduced aliens and space/time travel.

Marvel's universe tends to rely more on space/time travel, and the idea of the Power Cosmic.  There are aliens, of course, but the size and scope of cosmic entities in Marvel take this all to another level.

DC's universe relies more on magic/supernatural elements.  DC relies on space and aliens as well, but not like Marvel.  And even though there are magical elements in Marvel, DC has more to say and do with regards to magic, demons, and the supernatural.  Personally, I am way more interested in the occult and fantasy as I am with quantum mechanics.

Also, I lean more toward simplistic characters.  The Superman problem is a well documented issue that fans and creators share when confronted with the Man of Steel.  He is so powerful, and has so many superpowers, it is difficult to make him successfully exciting, and engaging.  He has no weaknesses (aside from kryptonite, but seriously, not that big of a deal).  He can fly, is super strong, has laser vision, is bulletproof, has frozen breath, and is super fast.  He becomes, at a point, no longer interesting, he can't be challenged.

So... my favorite characters tend to have one or no powers, and/or realistic drawbacks (unlike Green Lantern's ridiculous aversion to the color yellow).  Anyway, here are a few I like the most.


Green Arrow
First Appearance: More Fun Comics #73 (1941)

So, at first glance, Oliver Queen, the Green Arrow, is a poor man's Bruce Wayne/Batman.  He is a super rich socialite vigilante, has a goofy young side-kick, an Arrow-cave, gimmicky gadgets... He doesn't really have a superpower, however, he is a gifted archer.  Also, he looks like Robin Hood.  Seems like a character doomed to fail.

I like Green Arrow for a few reasons.  Unlike Batman, Green Arrow kills.  His signature thing is a weapon that takes great skill to wield properly.  He can kill from a distance, but also has enough hand to hand combat skills to make himself a double threat.

He also is a player, a womanizer, but unlike Batman, he does it because he enjoys being a playboy, not because he has to keep up his alter-ego's social appearance.  This brings us to relationships.  Most famously, he is connected to another superhero, the Black Canary.  This is a dynamic not present in Batman's character.  Both he and Green Arrow have father/son relationships with their younger sidekicks, but Green Arrow also has an amorous relationship to struggle with.  Batman writers did dabble with this when they wrote in Talia Al'Ghul as a love interest.  But that didn't really stick.

Aside from "trick" arrows, and other goofy gimmicks, like a family of similar archer characters, that were popular in 60's comics, Green Arrow never seemed to get out of control in the way that more famous and popular characters have.  There is still much to be explored and exploited with Green Arrow stories.  Based on the popularity of the new television series, Green Arrow could get the attention he deserves.

Kevin Smith worked hard to revitalize this character with his Quiver and Sounds of Violence story-arcs.  This rebuilding and rebranding of the character continued with Judd Winick's run in 2004.  Also, the character makes an important appearance in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.


Hourman
First Appearance: Adventure Comics #48 (1940)

Speaking of heroes that got out of control... Hourman is a pretty simple, one-sided hero.  Nothing too complicated about a chemist who creates a chemical that allows him to be super strong and super fast, but only for a limited time.  Eventually, someone decided that a human Hourman wasn't good enough and created an android from the future to take his place.  This was totally unnecessary, and kind of missed the point of the superhero to start with.

Why is this guy so cool?  Unlike Superman, Hourman is not always Hourman.  His alter ego Rex Tyler is a normal chemist with no powers.  He becomes Hourman after ingesting Miraclo, a drug that gives him his powers.  It only works for an hour at a time, so... he has to use strategy and keep track of time when using it.  This, of course, sets the hero up for dependency issues, and storylines about drug abuse, side-effects, and the ethics of human enhancement.

While maybe not a hero that can carry his own adventure, he is best on a team.  and who doesn't like superhero teams?

The problem with teams is there is often one guy on the team that can out-hero every one else.  On the Justice League, that guy is Superman.  On the X-men, that guy is a girl named Phoenix.  On the Avengers, that guy is Thor.  But for every Thor or Superman, there are a number of more interesting side characters that make up the team that would really get a chance to shine if it weren't for the ridiculously thorough and unnecessarily diverse hero that makes everyone else obsolete.  This makes Hourman pretty useful when he's paired up with a few other characters from the Justice Society, a team without that one guy.

The JSA Elseworlds story The Liberty Files shows how cool Hourman can be.


Daredevil
First Appearance: Daredevil #1 (1964)

This dude is blind.  Blinded by a radioactive chemical that also heightened his other senses, Daredevil has a radar sense, super hearing, and super-sensitive touch.  There are a few other blind superheroes in both Marvel and DC universes, Dr. Midnite and the Shroud share many of the themes seen in Daredevil.  He uses the darkness as an ally, his blindness becomes an asset, not a crutch.

Unlike most Marvel characters, Daredevil is never an Avenger.  Which is a huge anomaly in Marvel's universe.  Daredevil rarely leaves his own neighborhood/city, preferring to actually stick with his original premise, which is to fight crime and protect his city of New York, specifically the neighborhood of Hell's Kitchen.  Even Batman outgrew his original premise to protect Gotham, becoming so good at his brand of vigilantism that Gotham no longer is a challenge.  While a lawyer by day, Matt Murdoch is not super rich like Oliver Queen, or Bruce Wayne, and going toe to toe with street hoods, gangsters, and common criminals never seems dull with Daredevil.  Occasionally he teams up with fellow New Yorker, Spiderman.  They share many of the same villains.

Unlike Spiderman, however, there is no space-Daredevil (see black-suited Spiderman), or convoluted story of seemingly endless Daredevil clones (see the Scarlet Spider, Kaine, Spidercide...).  Let's all collectively pretend that Ben Affleck movie never happened.  Frank Miller's Man Without Fear and Born Again runs, and Brian Michael Bendis's run in 2001 are the best storylines.

Etrigan the Demon
First Appearance: The Demon #1 (1974)

This is an interesting magical character from DC comics.  Jason Blood, an Arthurian knight, is bonded with Etrigan, a demon son of Belial, and half brother to the wizard Merlyn.  I always thought characters with historical connections to other legends and myth are interesting.  New takes on old stories can be well done. There are a group of them in the DC universe with ties to ancient history.  Vandal Savage, Manitou Raven, Dr. Fate, and the Spectre are all examples of these characters out of time.

Not only does Etrigan have this out of time, ancient legendary status, and cool demonic powers, but also shares some of the same tropes and themes as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and the Incredible Hulk.  The difference between Jason Blood and Dr Jekyll and Bruce Banner, is his control over the Demon.  Jason Blood can summon his alter ego with a rhyme.  Also, the demon speaks exclusively in rhyme, which is awesome.  Etrigan/Batman team-ups are the best.  Also, Etrigan/Jason Blood is an important character in the JLA Obsidian Age storyline.

nana nana nana nana (g g f# f# f f f# f#)

Batman.

What a great character. Of all the super heroes created in the last 100 years, Batman is definitely the most intriguing. There are tons of other comic book superhero characters out there, some have more interesting premises and themes like the Wolverine, Hellboy, Spawn. Even lesser known characters from Batman's same publishing company (DC) on the surface have potential to be more interesting like Firestorm, Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Doctor Midnite, and Deadman. However, Batman towers above everyone else in popularity in the comics universe, and in pop culture. The fact that until recently, Batman (Bruce Wayne) was one of the few DC heroes from the Golden Age (1938-1950) to not die or retire and be replaced by another younger character attests to his popularity and staying power. Boom Tron made him their Badass of the Week in July.

Batman's origin has been told by numerous writers in numerous mediums. Not only is Batman printed monthly in several comic titles, but he has also been the subject of 2 movie serials, a live action television show, 5 animated television shows, 5 animated films, 7 live action films, and 28 video games. Basically, a boy born into privilege has a traumatic experience when his parents are gunned down in front of him. Instead of spending decades in therapy, and for the rest of his life trying to recapture a ruined childhood, Bruce Wayne devotes himself to becoming the best crime fighter ever.

The ideals of justice, charity, community and intelligence coupled with individuality and kickass brute force appeal to everything that Americans hold dear. Bruce Wayne encompasses all of these things. I think the real reason the character is so well liked is this unwavering resolve for justice.  Batman is the darkest hero without crossing the line to become a killer. This is the one rule of Batman. Some would ask why. After all, even the State decides some criminals are better sent to death row. Batman gives a great answer in the comics, stating that he doesn't kill because it is too hard to take a life, but because it is too easy.

A Christian interpretation may be that Batman views all life, even the depraved, criminal, sociopathic kind of life to be sacred and redeemable. But I'd like to think that Batman would much rather toe the line at murder rather than cross over into the world of the very things he fights. Keep this idea in mind for later.

Bruce Wayne decides though, that it isn't enough to just bring criminals to justice. The police do that everyday. Striking terror into the hearts of villains while bringing them to justice is way more effective. And so, he dresses up like a bat, which is a pretty scary animal. The fact that a grown man dresses up like a flying rodent doesn't seem to bother anyone, the other traits mentioned above make his wardrobe less silly.

On top of all this, unlike his peers Superman, and the Green Lantern who also uphold law, order, and justice, Batman has no superpowers or magical energy paraphernalia. He is just a man, a man with more wealth than some small countries, a good education, and the gift of being a good detective.

Great heroes are often complimented by great villains. This very idea is often a central theme for the Joker, perhaps the greatest comic book villain of all time. Batman's villains do not stop with the Joker, however. The Batman villains have the potential to be the most depraved, insane, dark, and twisted villains ever conceived. Even the more goofy villains created during the campy Silver Age like Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy and Calender Man have been written in ways that reveal how disturbing obsession can become.

These guys are not like Spiderman's mostly animal themed villains, or Hellboy's fairytale monsters, or even Superman's mostly super powered Earth threatening alien adversaries (this doesn't count Luthor, in fact, he would make a great Batman villain). Batman fights not just criminals, but fractured human psyche at its worst. These villains are not cliche cookie-cutter hero opposites bent on doing bad things for badness sake, they come largely from places of virtue... virtue gone insane. Plain crazy people are bad enough, but most of these Batman villains are also very intelligent. These are the insane scientists, professors, and doctors.

Among the long list of villains, Batman faces a variety of: deranged psychologists (Hugo Strange, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow), twisted scientists (Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, ManBat, Blockbuster), evil doctors (Hush, Professor Pyg), terrorists (Ra's Al Ghul, Bane), mobsters (The Falcones, Scarface, Black Mask, Maxie Zuess, the Penguin), thieves (Catman, Catwoman, Cluemaster), a district attorney (Two-Face) and egomaniacal fanatics (Mad Hatter, the Riddler, Calendar Man)...

and this guy...

the Joker, who often fits into all of those categories. The Joker has become the most well known Batman villain. All heroes have at least one well known anti-thesis. Superman has Lex Luthor, Spider man has the Green Goblin, Sherlock Holmes has James Moriarty, James Bond has Ernst Blofeld, and Batman has the Joker. The Joker makes much of this relationship with Batman. The Joker has passed on killing Batman when given the chance, his explanation being what would the Joker be without a Batman? The Joker seems to be his own study in madness. However, recently in the mythos, it has been established that the Joker may not be insane after all, which makes his character all the more intriguing and evil.

As suggested above, Batman has embodied fairness, and justice, which are virtues. Batman battles what happens to virtues twisted by madness. There is a line somewhere that these villains have crossed, and Batman continues to refuse to go there, keeping his own madness at bay.

Remakes are Sometimes Ninjas

Yesterday I saw a movie. Priest, directed by Scott Charles Stuart, starred Paul Bettany, Cam Gigandet, and Maggie Q. This film promised to be based on a graphic novel and deal somehow with an order of warrior monks and a reimagining of vampires. Lately, vampire movie translates into middle school chick flick, but the trailers proved this may actually be cool.

Let me start by saying the graphic novel and the film seem to share a name only. That being said, the world created in the film is actually pretty interesting. Two species always at war with each other (vampires and humans) vampires seem to have all the advantages save two: the sun, and the warrior priests. What impressed me the most about the story was the way in which the vampires are portrayed.

These are not your Transylvanian creepy aristocratic vampires, or your sparkly emo teenager vampires. These are hive-minded gollum-looking things with no eyes that move around like wild predators. The only thing truly explained in detail over time in the film is the vampire. I found the similarities to insects like bees and ants, and the links to popular vampire mythos fascinating. They have no eyes, they secrete stuff that helps build the hive, they sleep in crypts, they have a queen that lays egg sacs, sunlight kills them, they can turn victims into slaves. Very cool stuff. Much better than Edward, that fucking pansy.

This movie, while having some originality, really just blended a whole bunch of other original ideas together. The biggest influence, and the central plotline, was straight out of The Searchers with John Wayne. Elements of 1984, and the Unforgiven pop up also. They even borrow the "your father isn't who you think he is" bit from Star Wars and Golden Compass, but it's basically a Searchers remake, covered up and repackaged with vampires.

Which got me thinking, and then got me a little angry, especially after watching a trailer for the new Straw Dogs remake (even the movie posters are nearly identical), are there not any new movies to be made? Adapting films from books or comics doesn't bother me so much. Remaking a film that already was made, one that was already a classic and should stand forever as a good film on its own merit, that bothers me. Was Sam Peckinpaw's Straw Dogs not good enough?  It was already an adaptation of The Seige of Trenchers Farm (by Gordon Williams).

Why couldn't Priest be a film actually based on the comic's true plotline? Why use the name as a vehicle for a Searchers remake? Why try and hide the fact that it is a Searchers remake in the first place? It would have been a good starting place for an entire new franchise of films, but instead it's a Western/ScienceFiction/Monster movie mashup that failed at the box office. So, now this cool reimagining of what a vampire could be, is going to be buried.