So... last month, I saw the Joker; which was great, but not quite what I expected. No, I'm not saying, "oh it's gotta be like the comics!!!" since I knew it wasn't going to be much like in the comics anyway. I just meant I thought that society would push Arthur (the real name he's given in this film) around for a while, then he'd be forced to participate in a heist in a chemical plant and fall into a vat of chemicals (the usual origin of the character, best told in Moore's The Killing Joke and immortalized in Burton's Batman) and it would become a kind-of slasher movie but with the Joker.
And I was way off.
It's really a brilliant piece depicting the confusion of someone living with mental illness so powerful that he has delusions. As the film progresses, we don't know whether what we're seeing is real, a delusion or a lie. Someone expecting an action blockbuster might be disappointed, and it better serves those who are prepared for a film that's more "art-house" in its approach. I also didn't think the film would utilize the Batman mythos much, but it did. Thomas Wayne is a crucial figure in the film and is portrayed in a much different light than in Batman Begins, which leads me to this point: Heath Ledger is still my favorite Joker and The Dark Knight is still my favorite Batman or Joker movie.
But I'm not really interested in reviewing the film. Instead, I want to talk about the media's ridiculously over-the-top hand-wringing about how they expected violence at screenings for the film. I saw it at the Cinemark in Pacific Commons in Fremont and there were at-least three police vehicles.
Why?
Well, let's take a trip back to 2012. There was no DCEU and even the Marvel Cinematic Universe was just getting warmed up with The Avengers proving that you could combine different heroes into one team and one "cinematic universe." And, of course, Warner Bros released the final chapter of the Dark Knight trilogy: The Dark Knight Rises.
Tragically, at one of these screenings, some asshole in a somewhat Joker-esque costume (for fuck's sake, the guy had orange hair, the Joker has green hair!) shot up a movie theater. And since this film takes that same figure and makes a large to-do about mental health, in their infinite shallowness, thought that a copycat shootings--or many copycat shootings--might occur.
The logic, however, doesn't quite add up, when you consider one important thing: the Joker wasn't in that movie. He was the main villain of the previous film, The Dark Knight, which had come out in 2008, but not The Dark Knight Rises. No incidents at that screening. Plus, when you consider the fact that the Joker was first introduced in 1940 (and seen in countless comics since then), first seen in live-action in 1966 and the main villain of the 1989 blockbuster Batman, we can see that the Joker did not have a history of inspiring this kind of violence before the theater incident.
Then consider the fact that after The Dark Knight Rises, the Joker did appear in Suicide Squad. No, he wasn't the main villain, but it was hardly a cameo. And yes, it was a very different version of the character than what we saw in TDK, but so was the Joker of this film.
And, of course, the Joker was seen in any number of comics, animated installments and video games, including Injustice: Gods Among Us, in which--in an alternate universe, of course--he makes Superman hallucinate that Lois is Doomsday, causing him to kill her. Superman finds out, kills the Joker and starts a regime, causing the Batman of that universe to call upon the heroes of the main universe of that game.
This is an example of why the media isn't taken seriously by very many people, regardless of political stripe. They are biased. They whip people into a frenzy at will, just to move copy.
Last night, I went to go see Avengers: Endgame and, well, it was great but kinda longish. Yeah, after they... well... after something that happens early on, the film seems to take a sleeping pill for a while. But whatever, I'm not here to review the film. I'm here to talk about how this film--against its intentions--disproves a major anti-Superman myth.
I mean, after all, this film was made by a pair who thinks Superman's too powerful to make a good movie about him, but found it within themselves to make this double-header which, between the two films, combines the might of Thor, Hulk, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange, Scarlet Witch, Iron Man, War Machine, as well as a number of less-powerful Marvel heroes.
But anyway, before I can begin, I have to reveal a spoiler.
...
...
...
...
...
Everyone who "dies" at the end of the last one by crumbling into sand and vanishing comes back from the dead. Yes, including Spider-Man, which is a real surprise, I know. But there he is, in the final battle.
And now, the comic book orthodoxy has a bit of a conundrum on their hands. One of the talking points in the subculture of comic book know-it-alls is that my beloved death and return of Superman "ruined comics forever," by showing that a hero could die, but then come back. Of course, this had been done in comics, movies and animation before, but it didn't matter: somehow, once again, it was all Superman's fault, or at-least the people who were writing the material. And, of course, the people making this complaint could have done a far better job.
And yet, here we are in 2019, we've got Avengers: Endgame in which a veritable army of superheroes returns from the dead. In fact, this might even be literal: how many of Black Panther's forces bit the big one? Eh, whatever. The point is that Spider-Man, Black Panther, Falcon, Scarlet Witch... they are all fine and dandy.
Now, let's be honest: nobody is surprised. This movie was selling so many tickets before it hit the screens that people were actually scalping tix on eBay. I don't think that's ever even happened before for a movie. And yet, who predicted that this wouldn't happen? And if there was any doubt at all, the Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer pretty much cemented the fact that, at the very least, Marvel's most famous hero would be back.
And yet, according to the fandom orthodoxy, this same idea: "let's kill off a famous superhero," is what "ruined comics" thanks to Superman.
Of course, the movie just came out, so if it does suddenly plummet in ticket sales next week, beyond what anyone would expect, maybe I'm wrong. Of course, even if that's the case, we'll have to see how other movies do. Superhero films, non-superhero films. But I don't think that'll happen. Yes, "Endgame" will be the top film of the year, no question about it, but if it continues to sell tickets, I don't think the dynamic was that people stopped going to the movies because this movie made people lose faith in unrelated movies.
And that's what we have to look at with Reign of the Supermen. While it wasn't as big as the death issue, the simple fact is that before the death issue, Superman wasn't selling well. After the death issue, his comic sales improved for a while, something that can be confirmed by reading Wizard mags from the period.
Even if that weren't the case, did people expect him to be gone forever? Maybe some people, but if so, would that mean they couldn't bring him back in another comic "universe?" Or in a movie? Or on TV? After all, this was set in motion because Lois & Clark: the New Adventures of Superman was in the works.
Then there's the question of why that issue would effect what was going on in other comics. This had happened before in the X-Men with Jean Grey. Yet, their sales were high after that event and, by the early '90s, they were the kings of comics. Then there was Spawn. He was popular in comics at the time and his whole origin is that he was killed and brought back to life as a demonic figure.
The narrative of Reign of the Supermen killing comics is simply tripe. Avengers: Endgame looks like another example of WHY it's tripe.
On March 8, Marvel will release Captain Marvel, following the adventures of a (sort-of) new super heroine played by the gorgeous Brie Larsen. Later this year, Warner Bros will release Shazam, following the adventures of a teenager who magically becomes a superhero, played by Zachary Levy.
These two heroes may not be especially familiar to everyone, but some might be thinking, "wait... I thought that guy was Captain Marvel. Yup, red costume, super strength, says 'Shazam' in order to get his powers. That's Captain Marvel! Who's this broad?" This, of course, may confuse a lot of the uninitiated. She's Captain Marvel, why would you think Shazam was Captain Marvel? He's not even a Marvel character.
Trust me, there's a reason for this.
1940 was a banner year for superheroes: as the comic book world saw the first appearances of the original Robin, Flash, Green Lantern, Atom and Hawkman. Yup, all of these characters would become legacy characters, meaning others would come along and take their names. In fact, those who followed would sometimes become the more identifiable.
And it was into this world that the Captain Marvel was born.
By February of 1940, Fawcett Publications published the first issue of Whiz Comics, though it was listed as the second issue as the first was used only for copyright purposes and went unpublished.
In the cover feature, a young boy by the name of Billy Batson enters a subway station and is lead to the Wizard Shazam, who bestows upon him the ability to become Captain Marvel by saying his name. Captain Marvel is imbued with...
The wisdom of SOLOMON
The strength of HERCULES
The stamina of ATLAS
The power of ZEUS
The courage of ACHILLES
The speed of MERCURY
Captain Marvel quickly became the most popular superhero of the early 1940s, and held the honor of being the first to appear on the silver screen, beating out the first of Max Fleisher's famous Superman cartoons when the serial The Adventures of Captain Marvel premiered.
And that brings us to the Man of Steel himself.
It doesn't take a connoisseur of comics to see the similarities between Superman and Captain Marvel. The Big Red Cheese may have different colors on his uniform, but the two heroes look very similar. They also had similar powers (super strength, super speed and at-least an implicit ability to fly) and a few parallels (mad scientist enemies, jobs as reporters, throwing a car on the cover of their first appearances) but they were two different characters, not only in terms of origins, but characters. Billy Batson was a kid who became a Superman-esque hero by uttering a magic word, whereas Clark Kent was still Superman just behind a pair of glasses and a business suit.
National Periodicals--now, D.C. Comics--sued Fawcett Publications. It wasn't the first time. They had previously sued over the similarities between Superman and a character Fawcett had published called Master Man, and won.
However, Captain Marvel--it would turn out--would be somewhat influential in his own right. As many superheroes had kid sidekicks, Fawcett decided to introduce one by the name of Captain Marvel Jr. Despite what the name may imply, Captain Marvel Jr. is Captain Marvel's best friend Freddie Freeman who gets his powers by saying, "Captain Marvel!" As it turned out, Captain Marvel Jr. was the favored superhero of a young boy growing up in Tupelo, Mississippi: Elvis Aaron Presley.
Captain Marvel was also blessed with a twin sister by the name of Mary Marvel, who also gained her powers by saying "Shazam!" These two spin-off characters were co-created by Otto Binder who would go on to write some of Superman's sillier stories in the 1950s.
After World War II, sadly, Captain Marvel's popularity--along with that of many superheroes--began to wane. The spirit of World War II seemed to have bolstered the popularity of costumed do-gooders, but in the years following, some enthusiasm was lost. This likely had to do with the decreased need for comics as reading material for soldiers abroad, but also a growing audience. It's interesting to note that while other superheroes' popularity was on the decline, Superman's popularity grew somewhat. His was one of the few lines of superhero comics to continue, while his first live-action serial (Superman, 1948) and its sequel (Atom Man Vs. Superman, 1950) flourished at the box office and his first feature film (Superman and the Mole Men, 1951) was successful enough to engender a T.V. series (The Adventures of Superman).
Fawcett, meanwhile, was getting tired of battling Superman. The company tried taking Captain Marvel in a new direction, adding more horror elements to the books, but by 1953--by which time, the courts had decided that Captain Marvel did infringe upon Superman--Fawcett closed down its comics division.
Captain Marvel was gone, but not forgotten. The renown T.V. character Gomer Pyle re-appropriated "Shazam!" as his catchphrase, while the classic musical film West Side Story (1961) featured a character who was in love with Captain Marvel comics. Perhaps most notably, the Beatles mentioned the character in their 1968 tune "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill."
Or at-least I'm pretty sure it was a reference to this Captain Marvel. By that time, there was a new Captain Marvel.
Well, two, actually.
In 1966, a small comic book publisher known as M.F. Enterprises introduced their own Captain Marvel. By this time, reintroducing new versions of old superheroes had become a major trend in the comic book, beginning in 1956 with the Flash (new costume, secret identity, origin and occupation) and spreading to other heroes whose Golden Age adventures had run their course.
M.F. Enterprises's Captain Marvel could "launch" parts of his body at criminals. The character simply didn't last long, but legal issues ensued with Marvel Comics and before too long, Marvel introduced a Captain Marvel of their own.
Seems pretty natural, of course. Marvel Comics would want a Captain Marvel, especially since the original had been a legitimate cultural icon in the 1940s. This version, however, was not quite the same character.
Mar-Vell of the Kree army was scouting the Earth for the purposes of planning an invasion. His powers included super strength, energy project and teleportation, however, there was a disturbance with his powers, so he needed his helmet to use them. He also needed to drink a potion from time to time in order to breathe. In short, he had almost nothing to do with the character who had been so popular a generation earlier.
In the second issue, they introduced a character called Carol Danvers who was intended as a love interest. Skipping ahead somewhat, Carol went onto become Ms. Marvel in the late '70s and is the current Captain Marvel. She is the character appearing in the new movie.
But back to Mar-Vell: as you can see, his original costume left something to be desired: it looked like a kind of throwback to Flash Gordon serials, with a rather ho-hum color scheme. The story wasn't un-interesting, but his personality never seemed especially captivating or unique.
The following year, they introduced a plot device wherein Mar-Vell was hit by a blast of radiation and sent to the Negative Zone. A young character known as Rick Jones--a supporting character in other Marvel books--received a pair of negs-bands around his wrists which would enable him to summon Captain Marvel from the Negative Zone. This may have been an effort to make him more like the original by having a youthful character "become" him or at-least trade places with him.
This, and the snazzier costume with which he was outfitted, may have helped, but he never really became one of Marvel's top heroes, despite the cache one might think the name would bring. At the risk of creating a tangent, I think it's worth exploring a few reasons why Captain Marvel proved not to be a masthead for the company but, basically, an also-ran.
For one thing, the original Captain Marvel had been a legitimate cultural phenomenon in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1960s, younger readers likely weren't familiar with him unless, perhaps, they managed to get their hands on some of his old comics.
Most popular reboots of heroes had at-least something to do with the original. Marvel's first two heroes, SubMarriner and the Human Torch, were brought back in the pages of Fantastic Four. Like many of D.C.'s heroes, the Human Torch was given a new identity, origin, personality and (when not using his powers) look. He was Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four: the Invisible Woman's little brother and a sort-of James Dean type. Still: he had the same powers and, when in Torch mode, basically looked the same. The SubMariner, on the other hand, was reintroduced basically as he appeared in the 1940s, but was sometimes an antagonist of the team, though not necessarily a "villain."
Marvel's most popular hero in the Golden Age, however, was Captain America and with the fourth issue of The Avengers, in 1964, he had returned for good in a (surprisingly influential) story in which he'd been found in a state of suspended animation. He was the stalwart to whom all the other heroes looked for inspiration.
Not only that, but while Captain Marvel might have fit in with heroes such as Iron Man or Daredevil (that is, heroes with existential problems), Marvel's most popular heroes tended to be either monsters, like the Thing and the Hulk, or younger heroes like Spider-Man or the Human Torch.
Then in 1972, D.C. Comics licensed the original Captain Marvel from Fawcett Publications, who had agreed to stop publishing Cap in their 1953 settlement. In his return, it was explained that he and the other Marvels had been in a state of suspended animation (yup) but were now back. These new comics weren't top sellers and that's probably largely due to the retro nature of the books and the fact that they took place outside of D.C.'s main "universe."
It likely didn't help that because Marvel Comics owned the trademark to the name Captain Marvel, they were restricted from using it as the title of their mag, though apparently it was okay to refer to him as "the original Captain Marvel" in a blurb on the cover. This meant that on all merchandise for the character, the name "Captain Marvel" was forbidden, even if he was still referred to as such in the stories. As a result, the word SHAZAM! itself was used on toys, trading cards and other forms of merchandise. It's debatable as to whether or not people thought the character's name was Shazam, but in any case, it clearly hurt efforts to market him. While a live-action TV series and, briefly, an animated series did materialize, the trademark issue seemed to prevent Captain Marvel from returning to status as a household name like Superman or Batman.
Back to Marvel.
In Captain Marvel #18 (1969), Carol Danvers was caught in an explosion with Captain Marvel, which resulted in her gaining some portion of his powers. Eight years later, she came into her own as Ms. Marvel in the pages of Ms. Marvel #1. The series had solid writing and great artwork (the original artist was John Buscema who literally wrote the book on drawing superheroes) and some ties to Marvel's most popular superhero: Spider-Man.
All of this may have lead one to believe that Ms. Marvel would soon become one of Marvel's top heroes, and indeed their top heroine. And of course, the powers-that-were could be forgiven for not rushing out to air an animated series before the ink dried on their first issue. And in fairness, she did become a member of the Avengers (more on that in a bit) but sadly, Carol's time in the sun would have to wait.
At the time, superheroes tended to be treated with a certain amount of dignity. Then again, what distinguished Marvel from D.C. and traditional superheroes in general, was the fact that they put their characters through struggles that went far beyond beating the villain. Spider-Man dealt with bullying and media bias, the X-Men and the Hulk were both feared and hated by the world they protected, Iron Man had shrapnel in his heart as well as an alcohol addiction, Daredevil was blind and Captain America was a man out of time.
All of that pales in comparison to the cruelty that Marvel showed Carol in the early '80s.
In the infamous Avengers #200, Carol is impregnated in an incredibly controversial story in which she discovers that she's been impregnated and she ends up giving birth only three days later. The child, named Marcus, grew to adulthood almost immediately, claiming to the be son of Immortus and has come from Limbo, using Ms Marvel as a way to get out of there. Unfortunately, he finds he must return to Limbo and Carol returns with him, feeling a strong bond. Then, we see the following panel. I'd prefer any younger readers not view this, nor people who might be sensitive or easily disturbed.
This violation of Ms. Marvel is simply indecent and after this point, she'd be gone from the Avengers. In fact, gone from Marvel Comics for about a year. Uncanny X-Men writer was, rightfully, appalled not just because this act took place, but because the other Avengers (and apparently, the real-life writers and artists) just didn't seem to see the problem. Consequently, he followed up on it in Avengers Annual #10 which marked Marcus' demise.
Sadly, even after making her a regular in the X-Men series, Carol found herself in the midst of a battle with Rogue, who was one of Magneto's minions at the time. She held onto Ms Marvel long enough to take her powers permanently and, as a result, the character went from simply having the ability to drain the powers of others, but to having super strength, durability and flight as well. Not long after that, in Uncanny X-Men #, Carol lost her connection to the Earthlings and became a being known as Binary, joining the Starjammers and leaving the planet.
Meanwhile, in Marvel's first graphic novel, The Death of Captain Marvel, Mar-Vell himself passed away. I'm giving this short shrift because I haven't read this graphic novel and would like to do it justice in a future post. The point was that Captain Marvel was gone.
For a few minutes, but then in 1982, Marvel introduced a new heroine named Monica Rambeau, who became... Captain Marvel. This time, a black woman held the name, but once again, didn't become one of Marvel's top heroes.
It just wasn't a great time for heroes bearing this name. Marvel's attempts to introduce a Captain Marvel seemed to fall flat while the original Captain Marvel plodded along at D.C.
So how did we get to this point?
In 1987, Captain Marvel was integrated into the regular D.C. Universe following the Crisis on Infinite Earths miniseries. He plodded along in Justice League and some solo miniseries', but it wasn't until 1994's The Power of Shazam that the character truly came into his own. Mainly helmed by writer/artist Jerry Ordway, the series may not have been a top seller, but this time, incorporating the sillier concepts of yesteryear (for example, Talking Tawney) endeared the series to some readers and the character seemed to find his niche as a symbol of comic books' yesteryear. Even Superman had to modernize somewhat, but Captain Marvel could be that superhero who was, proudly, stuck in the past.
This was even more true of Mary Marvel upon her reintroduction. By 1994, the "bad girl" trend in comics was in full swing, but Mary was given a sweeter personality and her classic modest costume. That was... until the 2007 saga Countdown to Final Crisis in which she was taken over by D.C.'s top villain, Darkseid.
By this time, Freddie Freeman--who by this point, had gone by the monicker CM3, rather than Captain Marvel Jr.--became the new Captain Marvel while Billy became the guardian of the Rock of Eternity, which had previously been the Wizard Shazam.
Outside of the comics, the original Captain Marvel had appeared in episodes of Justice League Unlimited and Batman: The Brave & the Bold as well as the video game Mortal Kombat vs. the DC Universe. He had a long way to go, but he was, to be sure, regaining his stature.
Meanwhile, the question over at Marvel was, "will the real Captain Marvel please stand up?" In 1996, Monica Rambeau lost the title of Captain Marvel to Genis-Vell: an artificially-created son of Mar-Vell, previously introduced as Legacy. He held the title for about a decade, sharing it with his sister Phyla-Vell. Both heroes subsequently took on other names and both have since died. Monica currently operates under the name Spectrum.
Eventually, Ms. Marvel got her powers (and personality) back and rejoined the Avengers in 1998, albeit using the name Warbird (though clad in the second Ms. Marvel costume). In the 2005 saga The House of M, the magical character Scarlet Witch inadvertently altered the space time continuum due to a disturbance in her powers. This lead (temporarily) to major changes in the Marvel Universe, and we got to see Ms. Marvel written as though she were the idealistic heroine she was meant to be. By this time, comic books seemed to be reviving more traditional concepts and Ms. Marvel seemed to hit the bill. While the altered reality of House of M came to an end, Carol returned to the name Ms. Marvel.
Carol's popularity increased over the next several years, as she not only received her own title but also appeared in the animated series Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the video game Marvel: Ultimate Alliance and its sequel.
2011 saw the rebirth of the D.C. Universe in yet another reality-altering saga known as Flashpoint. In the aftermath, D.C. reintroduced Billy Batson, except this time, he was no longer Captain Marvel, but Shazam! The rationale in the D.C. offices was that they had been using Shazam on merchandise for so long that people just assumed that the character's name was Shazam. I still have my doubts that that's the case, but in any event, this character would no longer be referred to as Captain Marvel. In this continuity, he had to use the word "Shazam!" with intent in order to change from Billy Batson to Shazam or vice-versa.
In 2012, Carol Danvers officially became Captain Marvel and since then, she's been the only hero to bear the name. The name Ms. Marvel was given to a new character whose real name was Kamala Kahn, who was intended to bring forth some diversity by way of a middle-eastern Muslim teenager. This character's popularity doesn't seem to be off the charts, but it was an example of Marvel's push for diversity.
The two Captain Marvel movies recalls the 1983 Battle of the Bonds in which Roger Moore's Octopussy squared off against Sean Connery's independently-produced Never Say Never Again. The hype made Octopussy the highest-grossing 007 film to date (eventually unseated by Goldeneye and subsequent Bond films) but Connery remained, to most, the greatest 007.
I wonder if today's kids would even know that "Shazam" was even called Captain Marvel and, if so, what they will make of it. In any case... I'm rooting for Shazam! I'm still a D.C. guy and it honestly looks better, almost like a send-up. Captain Marvel looks good and I look forward to it, but kind-of generic, though I like the feel of the scenes of her in the air force. Kind-of like an all-female Top Gun but one that becomes a superheroine fantasy.
Finally... I'm not going to weigh in on Brie Larson's political views, but I am going to say that it's really, really hilarious that the dolts who run Rotten Tomatoes got all butthurt because of negative feedback after years of subtly engineering bias against the DCEU films beginning with Man of Steel.
It's strange to think that I haven't posted here in five years, but I haven't. And... really, things have changed very little in all that time. Oh don't get me wrong: there are now tons of great superhero/comic book/geek/sci-fi movies out there and I'm happy to say that the last three that I saw--Aquaman, Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse and the far less hyped Reign of the Supermen have all been great. Great with a lowercase G, except for Spiderverse which I feel was truly great. Like Jaws great.
We're coming out of a surprisingly awesome 80th anniversary of Superman, which gave us Krypton, Elseworlds (the Arrow/Flash/Supergirl crossover on TV) Action Comics #1,000, Brian Michael Bendis' run on various Superman books including his own miniseries Man of Steel (I'm not a fan of his, but this stuff was solid) and the direct-to-DVD animated feature The Death of Superman. This after the truly disappointing Justice League and good-but-unfaithful Injustice 2 both from 2017.
I'm thinking that this new version of my blog need not be as Superman-centric. I might even get into music and maybe even p... p... p... politics. But the comics world will be where I hang my hat and as far as I'm concerned, it's Superman's world and all the others just live in it. Of course, that's how Batman fans feel and it's his 80th anniversary, so there will be some interesting things coming out.
Figure I'll try to get this blog up and running about every other week.
So I haven't been writing in my blog for a long time, but I thought now might be as good a time as any. I'm not going to get into why I haven't been bloggin.
It seems, much to my dismay, that Man of Steel has officially lost the culture war. Not because it didn't do well at the box office--it did--and not just because Guardians of the Galaxy did better than it in the U.S. box office (as of this writing, GotG has yet to catch up in the worldwide box office, but it will). No, the reason we can say it lost the war was because so many people seized upon this as pay dirt. Whether it be Superman-hating Marvel zombies or the old codger fans who want to view Man of Steel as some dark sign of the times, they seized upon it. For pointing this out, I've been accused of lumping those two groups in, but I will acknowledge that they have ultimately different goals. But the simple fact is that now that the film has defeated Man of Steel--even though so many others didn't--that it's a victory for them and a missed opportunity.
What's so great about Guardians of the Galaxy? Well, one guy made an interesting point that the movie was "fun." Meanwhile, on another board, somebody offered that the film was "fun." Still, someone else had an entirely different take on the film which is that it was "fun."
Indeed it was, but the fact that this rivalry is to the point where even the guy tearing my ticket was like, "you're wearing a Superman shirt to a Marvel movie?" kind of sucks the fun out of it.
But what of Man of Steel? Well, sadly, the film will apparently suffer the same fate as such hits as Batman Forever, Daredevil and the Fantastic Four movies, which is to say that history will be rewritten to make it sound like a flop and the opinion that the film was bad will achieve a certain axiomatic status. Saying it wasn't bad will mean you're not a "true geek" and that you "don't get it."
When I aired the fact that the self-styled purists were ragging on the film, I was accused of "lumping them together," even though I never said they were the same thing. If by "lumping" he simply meant pointing out the fact that they were on the same side in this debate, saying I was doing so, was pointless. If he's under the impression that the times I've lost my temper with fellow fans is his issue, then he has no idea of the torment I have wrought upon many a hater before deleting my posts for fear of it coming up in a search engine.
Because one cannot predict all the clever ways in which my words--no matter how straightforward they are--will be twisted, let me simply state that none of this is to say that 1) not liking Man of Steel makes you less of a fan, 2) you do not have the right to criticize said film no matter how wrong you are on the facts and armchair psychology you use as a foundation, 3) that the film is without flaws or that 4) because of a particular style used by the filmmakers a film is instantly either better or worse.
In any case, Superman-haters tend to fall into one of three categories: the unwashed trash which I don't need to elaborate on, the trendy hipsters who seem to treat Marvel and D.C. like sports teams and with that, everything is a rivalry, and of course the psuedo-intellectuals who never seem to tire of saying "Superman is boring because he's too powerful so you can't challenge him and therefore no drama can ever happen and thus you can't relate to him," and blah blah blah. Man of Steel is only the latest to disprove that notion--whether you liked it or not--but it doesn't matter when it comes to the dogma of Superman-haters.
But there's a dogma to many of those who hate Man of Steel which explains why so many of them either a) never saw it but griped and pissed and moaned about it, or b) (and a can turn into b very easily) did see it--perhaps not on opening night--and went in with an eye toward hating it no matter what. It also explains why they act like pussy-willows every time somebody defends it with any force, but feel they can say the most horrible things about those who do enjoy or defend it.
The dogma is this: because of the failure of Superman Returns--viewed by them as a "proper" Superman film due to its homages, jokes and relatively bright color scheme regardless of... well... y'know--Warners realized they had to make a "dark" Superman movie to cash in on the "dark trend" that was essentially limited to Chris Nolan's trilogy of Batman films, but don't tell them that. So they hired Nolan to produce and Zack Snyder to direct. There was potential for this to be a dark sign of the times, sure. My point is that I just don't think it was. I don't think that it made him an anti-hero, and the only moral ambiguity is that the military thought he might be a threat.
Why be fair and say, "well, this wasn't as bad as I had feared," when you can just spear people who did like it as "not real fans" and make snide comments about the film, the filmmakers and the actors?
The film was rewritten in the reviews of critics who said there was no humor (there were a few funny lines) and that they never actually call him Superman (in a humorous exchange between General Swanwick and a pilot, he specifically refers to him as such) and no matter how many times you point it out, these poetic truths stick.
No matter how much you challenge the idea that him killing one guy--who he had similarly killed in the comics and regretted--they just kept on keeping on.
What results is that the film is being considered a failure despite being more successful in the U.S. box office than any film from this year except GotG (though I imagine the next Hunger Games film will top it) and so saying you liked it will result in derision within a subculture that's supposedly about embracing guilty pleasures.
The question is this. Now that we know that the most popular films are bright, colorful superhero films that don't take themselves too seriously, do we get to lament the "camp trend?" Can we lament that they "don't take the characters seriously" as people did about the '60s Batman, as opposed to how Nolan's Batman was--according to some fans and even pros--"abandoning its comic book roots" or "ashamed to be a superhero film?"
May we now lament that anyone who is rude to us is "denying us of our opinion," or hide behind our opinion when attacking others? When someone loses our temper with us, can we act like that person is the biggest bully in the world and compare him to some jerk we knew in high school?
Can we bemoan what a sad sign of the times it is that every superhero has to be a snarky wiseass, while ignoring Captain America and Thor as major exceptions?
If a Marvel film does worse-than-expected box office, can we point and laugh? Claim that we've somehow "won?" Yell "take that!?!" Can we act like we could run the company better?
Chances are, no, we can't. A dogma like the one concerning Man of Steel being a dark sign of the times and thus the people who hate it are heroic victims, is hard to overcome. Other "fun" superhero films--Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Lego Movie from this year--didn't do as well, but the fact that one did means they've "won." And if it hadn't, they'd get to shout down the benighted masses.
This "heads I win/tales you loose" thing belongs to them and them alone. Meanwhile, the haters will just keep on keepin' on, cuz you know, it's not like this Superman film was popular or proved them wrong or anything. They can keep feeling tough or cool or smart or whatever, because the purists have kicked the cane out of his hand.
From the moment I saw the first previews for Captain America: the Winter Soldier, I knew it was going to be a classic. The first one worked so well because it was going for an Indiana Jones kind-of vibe and it really worked as a good vs. evil story, and so did The Avengers which has become sort-of the Star Wars of our generation.
But now, this film takes its place up there with Spider-Man 2, X2 and maybe even The Dark Knight as one of the great superhero sequels of all time and proves that when done right, the best superhero films are the ones that follow the hero now that the story has been told.
I'm not going to go too into depth, because like The Dark Knight, it's really all about the surprises. And really, I think I'd need to see it again to really get the themes and what works and what doesn't, but I'll give a sort-of preliminary review.
For one thing, while other actors have played Captain America before in television films, a serial and even an unsuccessful film, Chris Evans is building a reputation as the standard by which future Caps will be judged, much like Christopher Reeve to Superman or Sean Connery to James Bond. As the guy who's always tried to do the right thing, he has the ability to seem like a man whose moral certainty is unwavering even when the world around him is a confusing place.
Anthony Mackie is also terrific as Falcon and I hope that the two of them make at-least one more movie together. He's got a certain wit about him without being a wise-cracker (well, not anymore than anyone else in the Marvel Studios films) and he was just the right man for the job.
Samuel L Jackson and Scarlett Johanson do their jobs as Nick Fury and Black Widow, but there's a certain zest missing. I never really bought Scar-Jo as Black Widow and this movie drives it home by placing the character's date of birth the same year as her real year of birth, meaning she would have been seven when the KGB disbanded. And why does she talk like she was born and raised in Santa Monica?
But of course, the man who brings the movie its political thriller credibility is Robert Redford and he gives a fine performance as, well, you'll see. I actually think he would have been the perfect Captain America in the '70s.
Now, this review may seem a little generic, so I'm going to warn you about some minor spoilers, so stop reading if you don't want them, but I'll try not to give too much away.
1) This movie is action-packed, but by the same token, it's extremely violent. It's not quite as violent as "Man of Steel," except that the deaths of characters is more explicit. Also, the horrible injuries suffered by some characters might be hard to watch. Think first before taking the kids.
2) I think most people already know that the Winter Soldier is Bucky, who survived because of experiments performed on him before Cap rescues him in First Avenger. He's also played by the same actor, so really, they've made things a little too obvious.
3) Maria Hill appears in this movie. Her character's appearance is one example of something that might not make much sense if you hadn't seen The Avengers because I don't think they do a great job setting her up. I'm not unhappy to see her, however.
4) On Nick Fury's tombstone, there's a passage from Ezekiel 25:17. Any Samuel L Jackson fan will recognize the significance.
5) And, of course, there are two scenes that play during/after the credits. The first one gives you a glimpse of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, while the second one is just… unsettling.
It's been a long time since I've posted here, but I think it's time to do so. The train kind-of derailed after I had a falling out with some people on a certain Facebook group and they were older fans, mostly, and seemed to delight in bashing all kinds of new comics. And, of course, because I had the audacity to defend things like--oh--D.C. Comics' New 52 line (concession, though, it's time they stopped calling it that) they not only made me out to be this young punk who had no true love for real comics, but this horrible bully because calling people things like "bizarro hipster," isn't just mildly cheeky to them, but sheer aggression, I guess.
And yet, I noticed another common thread with these people was that a lot of them were artists marginally employed in the field. Online editorials about comics, those biographical comics nobody ever reads but you always see at conventions, that sort-of thing. I know what you're thinking and, yes, I had a dream of getting into comics that I never fulfilled. Sure. But then, eventually, I just had to realize I wasn't the best artist in the world, and despite what you may think, that's really the only surefire way to get into comics.
I enjoy writing. I think I'm pretty good at it too.
I could sit around and be bitter that I never really had the chance to become the next Neal Adams or Jim Lee. Or I could be even more bitter that I never got the chance to become the next Herb Trimpe or Mark Bagley. But nah, I'd rather just move foreword. And yet, there are just a few things I have to say about the people who gave me such a hard time.
See, in this day and age, it takes a miracle to be given the opportunity to draw comics, especially for Marvel or D.C. If anyone tells you otherwise, feel free to smack them. But it can cause a lot of resentment if you don't really make it. Once you're given that first shot, it's also hard to stay there. That can be even more painful if your first few assignments don't go very well and your phone doesn't really ring. Working in the industry can really just kind-of suck.
And that's just artists. With writers, your best bet is to break in somewhere else, or so I've read.
Despite--or because of--all of this, it's extremely common--and always has been--to see fans--and I use the term loosely--make posts on message boards that are more like lectures wherein they second-guess the industry. This is especially true for D.C.--whether talking about the comics or the movies--where some people seem to want to view them as this failing company as opposed to Marvel who has all the right moves.
And it was true in the '00s before the New 52. It was true in the '90s when D.C. had blockbuster Batman movies and a relatively successful Superman TV series and Marvel had some poorly-recieved movies that ended up not screening in the U.S. Fandom is filled with people who want to "save" D.C. Comics by showing them how to do things "right--the Marvel way."
Just look through almost any comments section of any article about the new line. There are all these suggestions on what they "should have" done. Some have merit and some don't. But after a while, the backseat driving indicates a wish that they could contribute, which is natural, but the kind of thing that leads to hating a series regardless of content.
Some of them are good writers/artists and some of them--frankly--aren't. But that's beside the point. I'm always just blown away by how much they think they're above the company who "sold out."
After-all, another reason people hate the New 52 is that it's the product of corporate thinking: a lame rhyming name, "updated" armored costumes, the most popular guy in comics drawing their flagship book. All of this is designed to appeal to some thirteen-year-old.
Well, nothing, but if they really violate the heart & soul of the characters, then it's bad. Now, do I think D.C. has done that? Eh, not anymore than before. I'd rather have a Superman who was a little more aggressive than a Superman who "renounces" his citizenship and pooh-poohs truth, justice and the American way. I actually think Wonder Woman works better as an aggressive fish out of water, although they could work on giving her more of a soft-side. And I don't mind them giving Barry Allen some of Wally's personality characteristics. It's not like when they created him, they thought, "ooh! Let's make him as bland as possible."
Eventually, however, they start to form opinions about the audience for these books especially the younger ones. The word "hipster" is thrown around a lot, but when you think about it, the little subculture surrounding this hatred of the New 52 is very much a "hipster" thing. They were fans of D.C. Comics before it was cool. They supposedly hate it because of very deep, substantial deviations from what the characters represent, yet it always seems to come down to the "fascistic" (no really, someone said that) v-shaped collars just like so many "true fans" criticized some of the Batman films for "rubber nipples," as a shorthand for the real cons with those films.
Then, of course, there's the question of what they like about the character, which is sometimes revealed with phrases like, "I think Superman should be the one character who's proud to wear a ridiculous costume!" After a while, it becomes evident that they like the character mainly--perhaps even exclusively--because of the kitschier aspects of yesteryear.
And, of course, like hipsters, they complain about the corporate aspect, even though from Day 1, the D.C. Comics Superheroes were just that: corporate. Regardless of what they mean to you on a deep, philosophical level, they are the product of a big company who can do whatever they want with the character and stop you from doing something different.
People love to complain about corporations when it comes to entertainment--especially when they "raped your childhood" (that's where you compare cosmetic changes to old characters with child molestation)--and the reason is because really, it's win-win. If it fails, you can lord it over them what a bad move they made; that if you were in charge, you'd have done something that would have kicked some serious ass. You can label all the people who participated in it as "stupid," and the target audience as "fickle." And shame on them for abandoning the "true fans."
If it IS successful, however (and New 52 was, they just tried to paint it as a failure because of D.C.'s ill-advised Neilsen study) then they can just get as cynical as they will with talk about how all the corporate entity cares about is money, how they sold out and--again--abandoned the true fans. That is to say, if they succeed, you can toss them a quarter and watch them dive for it and if they fail, you can kick them while they're down.
Now, I know some of you may have noticed that I didn't talk much--really at all-- about content. And that in the time I've been "away," I could have talked about the Justice League: War film and perhaps the new Robocop remake. Maybe I'll tackle these in future blogs, but the reason I didn't try to defend the New 52 based on content is that it's beside the point. I mean, it's beside the point for the people I was talking about, so it's beside the point here.
After-all, if you can honestly say you picked it up and honestly didn't like what you read--as I did with my share of titles, such as Teen Titans, Superboy and Voodoo during the initial month--then fine. I'm not talking about you.
But if you're a bitter artist, get over it. If you're trashing it because it appeals to "hipsters," you're no better--or really different--from them. And if you're just going to be mad about corporations, then you've really got a lot to learn.
