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.
I don't always do reviews on this site, but I thought I would in light of the new animated DVD JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time, which is a direct-to-DVD Justice League animated film sold exclusively at Target, at-least so far. Ultimately, it's your classic kiddie fare: harmless, but bland. No big stars lend their voices to this film, and the animation is tepid but acceptable. Sadly, the biggest flaw is the story, which was clearly inspired by an old Challenge of the Super Friends episode, but with some Legion of Super Heroes characters--Dawnstar and Karate Kid--thrown in.
And yes, there was a member of the Legion of Super Heroes called Karate Kid. And he has to get back to the future. Sorry, it had to be said and yes, I stole that from Linkara.
The 'toon starts off with the Justice League battling their old enemies, the Legion of Doom. The Legion of Doom is a relic of the Super Friends and is basically a collective of various villains from each hero's rogues gallery, with Lex Luthor as the leader. Now, I've always felt the Legion of Doom to be a rather lame idea, but it makes sense for a kiddie version of the Justice League. That's what the Super Friends were and that's what this is.
The DVD gives us new looks for each member of the team. The best of these is Wonder Woman and the worst… I can't even think. Superman looks like a cartoonish reject from Pumping Iron in a variation of the New 52 costume, Aquaman's got no sleeves, and the design of Robin's costume is just odd.
No secret identities are ever given except for Superman's, which is unchanging and important to the plot. The only real battle where you think, "ooh, this is a cool matchup" is between Robin and Karate Kid. What's also odd is that neither the Green Lantern--who's been played up so much by DC lately and was the subject of a $200 million film even if it ultimately flopped--nor the Green Arrow--the subject of a very successful live action show--are present, though it's no big loss. Really, they almost could have put almost any roster in this film.
During the battle between the League and the Legion of Doom, Lex Luthor is trapped in the ice, where he stays in suspended animation much like Captain America. He manages to survive into the far-off future, when he's discovered by our two kid heroes, Dawnstar and Karate Kid.
Dawnstar was one of the sexiest super heroines in comic book history, but here, she's drawn as a fairly young girl. They've traded in sexy for cute, but that's okay, because again, was intended for kids.
When Luthor goes back in time by unleashing the Time Trapper--a Legion of Super Heroes villain, but here, he's used as basically a time-oriented genie--he gathers the forces of the Legion of Super Heroes to confront the Justice League.
Meanwhile, the two junior superheroes from the future travel back in time as well and enter the Hall of Justice. After Robin takes them as intruders, he and Karate Kid duke it out until Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman put a stop to it. Wonder Woman discerns that they're telling the truth thanks to her magic lasso and they confront Luthor, et. al who launches a plan to prevent Superman from being raised by the Kents.
A team of villains including Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, Toyman and the Cheetah manage to travel back to that period, while the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman try to stop them. But unfortunately, Bizarro manages to throw the baby Kal-El into space. Superman fades away in the present and the Justice League has never been created as a result, so the villains go full-force.
Now, with time travel stories, a suspension of disbelief is a must, if they could not only prevent the existence of Superman, but the Justice League as a result, how on Earth is it that Bizarro didn't fade into oblivion as well? He's a friggin' clone of Superman for crying out loud!
Anyway, after that, we learn that there's a paradox after the Luthor of "our time" is set free from the ice, which starts a paradox so that the Time Trapper is no longer under the control of the future Luthor. Blah blah blah, the League is back in business--including Superman--and they defeat him. There's an interesting coda, but basically, this is a pretty ho-hum film.
This might actually be a pretty good kid-oriented alternative to the upcoming Justice League: War, but ultimately, I don't recommend it. The voices are bland and the fact that it's available only at Target is just kind-of cheap.
Every time people get on the subject of a superhero film, or any other movie based on a comic book, it seems like someone will always claim that "comic book nerds" don't matter to the film studios.
Now, that may seem like common sense. After-all, a single comic book is lucky to sell 100,000 and who cares what some fat, sweaty guy who plays Dungeons & Dragons thinks, right? But are the tastes of people who read comics and weigh in on them on the internet that different from those of everyone else?
Besides, for something so "nerdy," it seems like there's an awful lot of people who play poser to it. After-all, don't graphic novels that have been on bookshelves long enough eventually turn a pretty decent run?
In 1989, Warner Bros. released Batman which was a dream come true for Batman fans who had been reading him starting in the 1970s, when his adventures took on a more gloomy tone, and the deeds of his enemies became more heinous. Oh, it took many liberties with the stories, but at the time, many fans felt it was just great to see a movie like this, which became the biggest movie of the year in the United States.
1992 saw the inevitable sequel, but some fans weren't happy. They could no longer overlook Batman's willingness to kill, and the monstrous look of the Penguin, so different from the comics. There were script problems from day one as well. And yet, many other fans thought it was terrific, however, many parents had taken their kids to see it not realizing that there were elements of the film that children would find scary and depressing. It was only the third-biggest movie of the year in America.
To remedy this, Warner Bros. released Batman Forever, which replaced the gloomy German-expression inspired look of the first two with a more exciting music-video like action flick. The villains were as comedic as in the 1960s Batman TV show--which, mind you, was a comedy in the vain of Get Smart and fans were divided over the inclusion of Robin. Consensus among fans was that the movie was a major disappointment.
Warner Bros. laughed all the way to the bank, however, as it became even more successful than Batman Returns (it was the second biggest film of the year) and continued on with Batman & Robin which was one of the most universally-decried films of the last twenty years. While it opened fairly strong, the film was ultimately considered a disappointment, if not a flop. While a low-budget Spawn movie did respectable, if unremarkable, business at the box office, and the Men in Black movie was an enormous hit, but it seemed that Batman's days of box office supremacy were over as the film came in 12th in the domestic box office.
Had Warner Bros. learned their lesson? Before we had a chance to find out, three years went by before 20th Century Fox released X-Men. Now, this is a strange case because the idea of the team as being feared and hated by ordinary humans was kept, as for a lot of the drama of the comics. It also featured Patrick Stewart as Professor X, who had been WizardMagazine's choice for the role since their first fantasy cast in 1994. Inevitably, there were characters who were altered quite a bit to support the story, and the costumes were pretty much unrecognizable.
The film did well, but was nowhere near what the first three Batman films had been. A year later, Warner Bros had put Superman back on the small screen in the form of Smallville, which covered his high school years, wherein he slowly learned to use his powers and deal with the typical problems of a teenager in Kansas. The show was a success, but with his costume nowhere to be seen, it was almost more like an urban fantasy (or, well, rural fantasy) version of the character as X-Men had been more of a straightforward sci-fi/adventure film in the vain of Star Trek.
Fans' opinions on each of these projects was divided.
That may have held true of Columbia's 2002 blockbuster Spider-Man, but with its box office earnings, it just didn't seem to matter. While there were still small changes to the mythos (the most talked about of which was Spider-Man's webs coming from his actual wrists instead of gizmos placed on them), his costume was much as it had been in the comics, with the main difference being in texture, and the idea of a teenager with coming-of-age problems and who fought crime because he had failed to prevent the killing of his uncle when he had the chance remained.
There were fans who nitpicked the changes as minor as they were. There were also those who felt it wasn't the best film it could be in general. But for the most part, it was considered a blessing from fans.
In the meantime, Smallville kept going strong, while a sort-of Batman spin-off Birds of Prey only lasted one season with many viewers complaining that it was confusing. Welcome to our world.
The show made a brief allusion to Smallville (suggesting that in this universe, Superman was far younger than Batman and even Batgirl) but never crossed-over. Birds of Prey had many similarities to Smallville--a modern rock soundtrack, an attractive cast, no costumes for the heroes except in flashbacks) but predictably had a much different atmosphere and premise.
While the series was cancelled after just one season, the show runners were given the opportunity to reshoot the final episode, which showed that they at-least cared what viewers thought as far as it went.
During the next two years, X2 (why they couldn't call this otherwise fine film X-Men 2 is beyond me) and Spider-Man 2 did great business at the box office, each about as faithful as their predecessor. On the other hand, Daredevil was a mediocre hit, and The Punisher more-or-less broke even, while The Incredible Hulk was basically a high-profile flop. All of these films were fairly faithful. It may not have helped that the independent comic-based League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--a tepid film that really would have been lame even for the '90s--was also something of a flop in the domestic box office.
However, none of these films did quite as bad as Catwoman, starring Halle Berry in the title role. I cannot comment on this film in that I haven't seen it, but in addition to terrible reviews, there didn't appear to be any fidelity to the source material. They changed her secret identity, and I'm under the impression she had cat-powers. I'm also under the impression, she's a straight-up hero (if maybe an anti-hero) as opposed to the burglar with a heart of gold as seen in the comics and cartoons.
Oh shit, almost forgot, here's the Spider-Man 2 trailer.
Despite what Catwoman implied, however, Warner Bros. had been listening to Bat-fans. The next year Batman Begins was released. Fans had been clamoring for a "Year One" type film since almost immediately after the release of Batman & Robin. The film not only returned Batman to the darkness of the past (where he'd been in the comics all along), but also stayed somewhat closer to the source material. The film made Joe Chill the killer of Bruce's parents as he had been in the comics, and used the idea that it was a mob-hit made to look like a robbery--a product, ironically enough, of the '50s comics. We also saw Bruce training with Rah's al Guhl, a major character in the comics and in the animated series, but who had never appeared in live-action. The film even ended with a tease for the Joker, that was straight out of Batman: Year One.
That's not to say the film never tarried from the source material. They still had a black, armored costume and the love-interest was an original character; but compared to Batman & Robin, not only was this film practically a work of utter genius, it was also practically verbatim what was in the comics.
And yet, while the film faired mostly well with critics, some felt it was tedious and that too much attention was devoted to things like the creation of Batman's gadgets. In box office figures, the film did well, but didn't quite restore Batman to his early '90s glory days. What I will say is that the film had a certain feel to it like it was faithful to the comics without trying to rest on the laurels of being based on them. This sort-of takes the X-Men formula to a higher level. It's its own movie, and I really think that it was the greatest superhero film of all up to that point, though Spider-Man 2 and Superman: the Movie are strong contenders as well.
The same year, a Fantastic Four movie hit the screen. It was reasonably faithful, with the predictable watering-down of the main villain. It just… sucked. But it wasn't exactly a flop.
By this point, it's obvious that filmmakers and studios saw the value in fidelity to the source material as well as seeking the opinions of the base. But does that mean they started giving a rat's ass about what fans think?
Well, I think we've gone long enough without defining the word "fan." A fan doesn't necessarily mean someone who's at the comic book store every Wednesday
X-Men: The Last Stand or whatever the third film stepped away from treating the series as straight sci-fi/adventure and went with something with more of a superhero feel, even if the costumes were, for the most part, what they had been in the earlier films. It still took liberties with the characters--Cyclops' death being a case-in-point--but it was also just incredibly cheesy. That was the conciseness among fans, though the film did well at the box office.
But that summer came the most divisive film in superhero history.
Superman Returns is a movie I cannot describe in objective terms, because it just pissed me off that royally. I'll try: it was a broad-strokes sequel to the Christopher Reeve film (according to its press, it followed the first two but ignored the later two) and the idea was that Superman left for five years because some scientist discovered evidence that Krypton might not have blown up. Right off the bat, this premise is contrived at best, and self-serving on his part at worst. But anyway, he returns to find that Lois had a son and has a boyfriend. Lo and behold, he discovers that he's the child's true father. Oh, and there's some bullshit about how Lex tried to use the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude to… um… turn North America into that so people would pay to live there?
This offensive, nonsensical gibberish brought in $200 million at the U.S. box office with an additional $191 million overseas. It garnered a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes as well. These numbers aren't that bad, but when you look at the $270 million budget (whether or not that includes prior attempts to create a Superman film) and the aim of critical prestige, it really wasn't that big a deal. Yet, many fans love it.
Why?
Well, because: it said it was faithful. How did it manage that? Well, the film went into pre-production soon after the deaths of Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeve, the stars of 1978's Superman: the Movie which began the age of blockbuster superhero films. It was produced by Alexander and Ilya Salkind, the later of whom was a big fan. Warner Bros. distributed and largely financed it, but it was basically a Salkind production, so the corporate era really began with Batman.
That's why it's easy to say that blaring the John Williams music enough, finding a guy that resembles Christopher Reeve enough, and quoting enough lines from that classic of classics was "faithful" even if the plot was out-of-character shit. At the time, Superman: the Movie was considered more-or-less the granddaddy of superhero films, despite some infidelities and important reboots and events in the comics since it came out. Yet, there was a divide between "comic book fans" and "Donner fans," in the years leading up to Man of Steel. And I hold Superman Returns director Bryan Singer--who had masterfully helmed the first two X-Men films--as the prime suspect.
Now, take another look at the box office figures and critical response. Does this sound worthy of a sequel? I mean, it's more-or-less what Batman Begins took in, albeit on a much larger budget. Bear in mind also that Batman's comics have also sold more in general, with some major exceptions, and that Batman's prior films were more recent and more profitable than Superman's, even adjusting for inflation (Superman IV was an unmitigated disaster at the box office, and III was a modest hit) and Bats had done better in TV animation and far better in video games--in fact, Superman's rep in the world of video games was considered terrible.
However, Superman did still have a feather in his cap, which was that he had always been successful in live-action TV. The Adventures of Superman was a nugget of the golden age of television proving there was life before Reeve, Superboy was a cult favorite, Lois & Clark was a respectable prime-time hit for ABC, and Smallville was still going strong when Superman Returns came out. Plus, the first two Christopher Reeve films had been huge hits, as long ago as they were released, and the 1992 Death of Superman arc, and its sequel Reign of the Supermen (I'm trying to explain it in terms a studio board member would understand) were big-sellers, with the death issue itself selling about three million copies.
Meanwhile, many fans felt Superman Returns was a great accomplishment and embodied everything they'd wanted in a Superman film--especially after years of rumors and leaks of a very unfaithful film in the late '90s and a slight improvement in the early '00s--but many others, including myself, flatly didn't. Some like me were offended by the scenario. There would be no way to follow it up without making Superman a deadbeat dad at-least at the beginning of the movie. Others felt the original films were too old anyway, and hadn't aged as well as some of their contemporaries. I could see where that was coming from, but I feel that if the Star Wars films could have prequels, Superman could have sequels if they loosely adapted more recent stories.
I'm not sure, but I think D.C. was trying to test the waters when they released Superman: Doomsday, the first in a line of animated films based directly on stories from the comics, and with no ties to any other animated or live-action projects. I really hated Superman: Doomsday, but the next one--Justice League: New Frontier--was a gem, and one day, I'll review them in greater detail; but today, I'm here to talk about theatrical releases.
2007 was not a great year for superhero films. While in the U.S. box office, Spider-Man 3 reigned supreme, Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer barely covered costs. Movies based on non-superhero comics were also coming into the fray. A CG-animated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film aimed low with a $34 million budget, but hit its mark with $54 million domestic. 300 was a surprise hit and marked Zack Snyder's entry into the arena of comic book adaptations. But it was Michael Bay's Transfomers, which we can call a comic book adaptation because the first fiction for the characters was the Marvel comics, was a tremendous hit.
Back to Spider-Man 3, though: it adapted the symbiote costume saga and the advent of Venom with a reasonable amount of fidelity… but the role of Eddie Brock was miswritten and miscast. Bryce Dallas Howard was good as Gwen Stacy, but the role of the character was unlike in the comics and they seemed to be using her for every moment they needed a female of childbearing age who wasn't Mary Jane. The Sandman story was good, and he made for the perfect foe for Spider-Man in the living costume; but while the story of him being Uncle Ben's true killer was almost like a retroactive Batman-esque "have the villain kill the parents" moment. But more importantly, the symbiote isn't well set up or explained, the scene where "dark spidey" goes nuts in a coffee shop is beyond lame, and the special effects were just a little behind the times.
In other words, fans generally acknowledged that it was faithful enough, but it still sucked.
The following year, however, superhero films turned a page.
When that trailer hit… we knew a new era had begun.
The first production of Marvel Studios, Iron Man was, to many people, the ultimate "comic book movie." Not only did the costume look a lot like in the comic books of the time, but the film was faithful almost to a fault. When Tony first escaped from the camp, he wore the original clunky armor that many fans never thought they'd see on the big screen. Practically every supporting character from the comics appeared in one form or another. And most importantly, it ended with a post-credits scene in which Nicky Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson, telling Tony that they're "forming a team."
Later that year, Tony Stark appeared again The Incredible Hulk, a film that was marketed as a reboot to the 2003 disappointment that was Hulk, and yet, seems to almost take up where the last film left off (Banner is in Brazil) and don't devote much time to the origin, however they do provide a new origin in a brief flashback and explain that it was part of an experiment to replicate the super soldier serum from World War II. Also, there was a new cast, which sold the idea that it was a reboot, but to moviegoers unimpressed by the first film or unfamiliar with the Marvel Studios plan, it wasn't a big deal. This film didn't really do much better than its predecessor, and the big problem remained that the CG Hulk wasn't convincing enough. By that point, however, Iron Man--a superhero who was largely unknown outside of comics and video games--had made his mark, even if the hero who had been Marvel's biggest hero in the late '70s/early '80s (unless you count the Star Wars characters) was clearly not the draw he used to be.
By the middle of July, though, the disappointment of the Hulk movie didn't matter. Batman Begins had built up a following on DVD, and critics were raving about the performance of Heath Ledger, who had died since the film wrapped up shooting. Fans' early reactions to stills from the film was a bit tepid in some cases, as the Joker bore scant resemblance to the comics and there was division over the decision to simply title it The Dark Knight; but by the time the film was on the way to theaters, nobody could hide their curiosity.
The Dark Knight quickly became one of the biggest films of all time, with critical response through the roof and Oscar buzz (and an eventual win) for Ledger. It was the biggest movie of the year, and until Avatar won out, the entire decade.
While the plot of The Dark Knight is not without its influence from the comics, nor is it something that couldn't happen in the books (except, arguably, the ending) it wasn't a direct adaptation. Fans can debate whether the Joker was ultimately more similar to the comics or less than the Jack Nicholson version, and the inclusion of the Wayne Foundations (which owed itself to the comics of the early '70s) was probably neat for some fans but lost on others. One of the main differences between Superman & Batman vs. most of the Marvel stable, is that these two heroes have been in several influential films and TV shows, and rebooted several times in the comics; while the Marvel bunch has seldom been in live-action films of note (the '70s Hulk TV show is a major exception) and the comics were rarely rebooted, notwithstanding Ultimate Marvel. Even the animated series' tend to be more-or-less direct adaptations of certain stories, while D.C. animation has tended to add its own creations into the mix (compare Justice League Unlimited and Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes).
2008 marked a new era because it was obvious that a couple of very different superhero films could come out and be the top two films of the year. It also founded the idea that Marvel's films (20th Century Fox's had a more playful, colorful style while Warner Bros.' films based on D.C. heroes tended to try for more of a "realistic" style. Which is "better" has been the subject of bitter debate among fans, and it's these two films that have set the discussion.
There was also a Punisher reboot that year… but I never saw it and don't care.
The following year, 20th Century Fox released X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which leaked early, and garnered negative press there from. Despite being Fox's most faithful X-Men film to date, it was not well-regarded, but Fox soldiered in the years to come and the box office returns were fair.
Less commercially successful was Watchmen, an adaptation of the most acclaimed miniseries-cum-graphic novel of all time. The film took some liberties, mostly with the ending and the costumes. In my humble opinion, some of the redesigned costumes were improvements and if anything, some of the revisionist history was probably confusing to less-informed moviegoers (e.g. Nixon still being president in 1985). In my humble opinion, the film was very faithful, but it seemed like a lot of fans were upset about what changes were made, and incredibly, some fans even criticized the more incidental moments (the old man and kid at the comic book shop) which is to say that this is simply one of those films where the stereotype of overzealous fans nitpicking minor changes was demonstrable.
Was this a case of a movie studio and filmmaker not listening to fans or fans expecting something not in the cards? Bear in mind that until after the film came out, Watchmen was a completely self-contained story that took place outside of the D.C. Universe and had no prequel, sequel or spin-off of any kind.
That same year, films like G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, Star Trek and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen were based on franchises targeted to the same audience as superhero films. Again, the Transformers and the G.I. Joe characters' first fiction originated in comics, while Star Trek was very influential in comic book/superhero circles, with actors from the various Trek series' appearing regularly at conventions. For what its worth, many fans felt Transformers had been an embarrassment and did not like what they were seeing with its sequel or the G.I. Joe movie. Even Star Trek was quite controversial because of some feeling that they shouldn't reboot the beloved space saga.
There was also a film called Avatar that became the biggest film ever. But it wasn't based on anything, so we don't need to talk about it.
Meanwhile, a sequel to Superman Returns had been scheduled for 2009, but nothing seemed to be happening. Superman Returns action figures with a Man of Steel logo appeared on the shelves of Target, and the presumptive name of the sequel was indeed Man of Steel, but not one frame of footage appeared to have been filmed. Had the movie been cancelled?
Many fans sure wanted it to be cancelled, but again, many didn't. However it was increasingly obvious that those who did want a reboot tended to be either non-fans, or fans of comics beginning in 1986, following Crisis on Infinite Earths and the reboot miniseries Man of Steel;while those who favored the earlier "pre-Crisis" comics or the Christopher Reeve films wanted a sequel. If Warner Bros. was indeed listening, it had a choice to make, and it looks like they did as early as April 22.
Perhaps this quote from Jeff Robinov in a 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal sheds some light on this subject: "we're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters will allow it." In that interview, he said they had been disappointed in Superman Returns and that they'd planned to "reintroduce" the character, although it wasn't set in stone. Still: to that point, there had been little, if anything, to suggest that a reboot was in the offering.
Moving on to 2010, Iron Man 2 hit theaters. By this time, fans were used to sequels that improved upon the first outing: X2, Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, and in some people's opinion, Superman II and Batman Returns. This time, however, there was a disconnect. Had Iron Man 2 been a faithful film that managed to excite and tell a great story? Or did it get bogged down with in-jokes and meandering plot threads? Most importantly, was it getting people excited about the upcoming Avengers film, or did the setup get in the way of a good story?
At this point, the later seems to be the more common opinion, though at the time, the excitement was still bubbling for the big crossover.
Iron Man 2 was the only big superhero film of 2010, though Warners put out a film about the western D.C. Comics character Jonah Hex, which faired very poorly. Iron Man 2 was the third biggest film of the year showing that he was still going strong. In my humble opinion, the film may have some rather huge flaws, but it was certainly the type of film many fans had been hoping for. They just should have put more effort into creating an honestly-good film instead of a celebrity pajama party.
By this point, a reboot had been announced, not of Superman, but of Spider-Man, whose massive success at the box office and fidelity to source material had been an inspiration to Hollywood for nearly a decade. It seemed odd, since Spider-Man 3 had done well financially, and even the internal politics (director Sam Raimi's falling out with Columbia/Sony and star Tobey Maguire's leaving apparently out of loyalty) didn't seem like the series needed a reboot. But the decision had been made.
The next year saw the release of four mainstream superhero films, all trying to be at-least somewhat faithful. Thor was the first one out of the gate. While the film was mostly popular and got good enough ratings, influential critic Roger Ebert gave the film a scathing critique. Ebert's no snob by the way. For my money, the film was okay, but nothing special. My knowledge of early Thor comics is limited and my knowledge of later Thor comics is nonexistent, so all I will say is that originally he had a secret identity in Don Blake, a handicapped doctor whose cane turned into the hammer of Thor and he turned into the deity; yet, this is not covered in the film, although there's a brief mention of someone named Don Blake.
X-Men: First Class served as proof that Fox was trying to get a little more faithful to source material, but they were still off and had no choice but to be off because of how their "universe" was structured. The film had elements of a '60s spy thriller and even managed to incorporate a real-life event (the Cuban Missile Crisis) into the narrative. It had its flaws, but I actually recommend it as something that tried to be as faithful as it could be, mostly using unfamiliar characters, with new actors as the younger Charles Xavier and Magneto, both of whom will return in Days of Future Past along with their older counterparts.
But the biggest disappointment of the year was Warner's D.C. adaptation Green Lantern which I'm honestly afraid to talk about. I said something about it being a mediocre film and someone excoriated me as this fanboy who just wants everything to be 100% like the comics. Then, about a year later, I said it was fairly generic, but that I didn't think it was any worse than Iron Man 2 or Thor and said I was just a D.C. fanboy who had no objectivity.
Anyway, I didn't see much in the way of infidelity given my narrow familiarity with Green Lantern. From what most people said, he was too cocky and irresponsible, which was inconsistent with Hal Jordan's personality. My problem is that it was just generic and didn't have much going for it, with a character who should have been interesting visually. There's also too much emphasis on the love story and not enough on what could have been a fascinating look at this intergalactic authority. For a better film, check out the animated Green Lantern: First Flight.
Now, at some point, D.C. seemed to hope that Green Lantern would become their hero that just suddenly gained a new popularity like Iron Man, and be their third--or even second--most popular superhero. Yet, it just was not to be. The movie does serve as food for thought, however: if this had the Marvel logo on at the beginning and tied in with another superhero, would it have done better?
Thankfully, the final superhero movie of that summer was awesome and faithful to the comics. Captain America: the First Avenger followed the title hero from his origin as a young private who volunteers for an army experiment to grow bigger, stronger, faster, etc. to his seeming demise in the frigid sea with the film ending in modern times as we get a preview of the Avengers film after the credits.
There are scenes taken virtually verbatim from Ultimate Origins and yet, the film feels fresh, almost like Marvel's stab at an Indiana Jones type of adventure. The cast is incredible and while the story isn't gobsmackingly original, it is a thrilling adventure and ode to the most important period in superhero history.
The following year was something of the year of the superheroes. The Avengers was the biggest movie of the year. No, it's not 100% faithful to the comic book. In order for that to be the case, Cap would have to appear either toward the end, or not at all. Plus, you'd have to swap out Hawkeye and Black Widow for Ant/Giant Man and Wasp. But for all the razzle-dazzle, references to comics, the fact that it had basically the same villain as in The Avengers #1 49 years earlier, and that a plethora of other films lead up to it, it's pretty damn faithful if you ask me.
Not only that, but it was produced by a comic book company that had become a movie company. That's the key: Marvel had been producing the Iron Man films, and all other films that lead up to this one. There's not much to talk about as far as the plot goes, but whatever.
Later that summer, the Spider-Man reboot came into fruition. This time, the backstory of Peter's mother and father had more to do with it and Gwen Stacey (the love-interest in late '60s/early '70s comics) was written much as she had been in the comics, rather than the catch-all female of Spider-Man 3. Spider-Man's web-shooters returned, rather than having given Peter the power to spin webs on his own--one of the few controversial liberties taken with the Raimi films--and the costume was changed to something still recognizable, but in my opinion, cheesier. I'm glad to see they've essentially returned to the classic costume in the upcoming film.
While I think The Amazing Spider-Man was ultimately a better film than its predecessor, it isn't such a vast improvement that it warranted making a reboot just ten years after the original. It is only slightly more serious and slightly darker. Both versions depend on Peter and Ben having a heated argument before Ben is killed to ratchet up the guilt, and while the idea that Peter goes on a manhunt to find the killer which is never resolved is an interesting twist, it just never seemed like this reboot was born out of anything but inside baseball.
Incidentally, Sony's other top franchise (I hate that word) returned that year, surprisingly out-earning Spidey with Skyfall, the third film to feature Daniel Craig as James Bond. Many people were confused about the timeline with respect to his initial outing, Casino Royale (it took place when Bond was in training, but it was still the Judi Dench version of M, whose hiring was a major hurdle for Bond in Goldeneye because he had to… *gasp*… take orders from a woman), but Skyfall actually seemed to be having fun with the idea that there's no solid timeline for Bond.
I don't think we can look forward to that kind of artsy-fartsy approach with Spider-Man, but time will tell. In the meantime, it did well at the box office, but was only the seventh biggest film (the first Spidey to not be #1 or 2) in the yearly box office and came in well under $300 million, unlike the others.
Then, of course, came The Dark Knight Rises: the third in what's known as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Where the first movie was quite faithful and the second one was something that could happen in a Batman comic, this one throws it out the window, catching up with Bruce long after he's hung up the cape after the events of the previous film. He returns (with a flying Batmobile) to do battle with Bane. Yes, the part where Bane snaps his back is derived from Knightfall, but the rest of the film is devoid of resemblance to the comics. I won't spoil it, but let's just say there's a reason they've introduced a new Batman to join Superman in his upcoming film, despite the first teaser for the flick being shown along with The Dark Knight Rises.
It may sound like I'm saying that TDKR was written without fans in mind, but by this point, a veritable religion had grown around these films, and Warners had put the man behind them in charge of kickstarting their oldest and debatably next-most-popular superhero.
There were nods to the comics, and ultimately, it played like a high-concept Elseworlds graphic novel. I think what we've learned here is that with the two oldest and greatest superheroes, they've been storied, adapted, rebooted and merchandised so much over the years that there's no way any movie could please the bulk of the fan base and not be controversial.
That will take us to 2013's Man of Steel, but first the biggest movie of that year was, once again, an Iron Man film. It seemed inevitable that Iron Man 3 would be the biggest superhero film of the year and that it would face more competition from the sequels to The Hunger Games and The Hobbit than Superman might have to offer, especially coming off of The Avengers. There were continuity nods, but it was actually a little more divergent from its source material. In fact, I'm not terribly familiar with the Mandarin, but it seemed to me like they completely bastardized him.
But I don't care. The focus of this article was always to talk about Man of Steel and I've defended it as a film. Right now, what I will say is this: many fans loved Superman Returns. Many, including myself, hated it. Opinion from casual fans may have swayed more in favor of Superman Returns, but against it in the eyes of fans of the action genre. For better or worse, though, most seemed to be basing their opinion on the nods to the Christopher Reeve films and the lack of violence than anything else.
Again, though, when a Superman reboot was announced, it was joined with the half-hearted promise of it being "dark," whatever that meant. If you ask me, many fans, casual fans, posers, and people who only liked Superman because of the kitschier elements of yesteryear were pissed and seemed to assume the worst. If they saw him in an unhappy scene, he was being "emo," and it was a dark sign of the times that he wasn't smiling. If he was taking charge and fighting the bad guys, he was "cocky," and causing to much destruction. And the killing of Zod? Superman doesn't kill, right?
Generally no, but he did kill General Zod in an incredibly important story from 1988, and in the years to come, his remorse got the better of him, which is hinted at here, but where they go with it remains to be seen.
The film was considerably more successful than Superman Returns but not competitive with Iron Man 3. Checking boxofficemojo.com today, I saw that it was now only the fifth biggest film of the year, having been overtaken by the animated feature Frozen. I didn't see that coming and thought that if anything, The Hobbit would have been its competition (the high frame rate of that film seemed to distract from the box office) but it didn't matter.
This movie was the product of listening to fans. But as I said above, these two heroes who have been around since the great depression and been part of our culture through thirteen presidents, several wars, countless technical innovations and had been seen in almost innumerable radio dramas, animation, serials, TV shows and movies. Batman has made over $3 billion at the box office, while Superman has made one billion, and has a grand total of 24 seasons worth of live action television. It's almost becoming impossible to please half the fanbase for either of these characters.
Make no mistake: Warners has been listening. It's just that fans can have bad ideas, or give incredibly mixed signals. And if it seems odd that the last two Superman films have been greeted with a strange amount of controversy, well, wonder no more.
Oh. And Thor: the Dark World and The Wolverine were both pretty faithful from what I could see, but I could be wrong, and they did okay financially.
I can't remember when exactly I heard about Earth One, but I remember that it was on a message board, and that it was FAR in advance of the material getting out. At first, I didn't really know what to make of it, but as time wore on, I started to realize that I did find it intriguing, if for no other reason, than these two pieces of art.
Yup, Superman had a different costume, and yet, not a dramatically different one. Just stylistically somewhat different. And, honestly, I thought it was kind-of cool. Oh, I prefer the traditional boots, but I always liked the inverted \S/ and thought it made more sense on the back of the cape, than a completely yellow one. The details were also an interesting touch. The Batman costume you see there didn't look so great in that particular shot, but it looks cool in other pix. Eh, whatever, he gets updated costumes all the time.
But what was Earth One? Well, since D.C. had brought back the multiverse, it seemed odd that they would create a new segment of the multiverse that was called Earth One, but in a sense that's what they did; but let's be clear, that's only true if you imagine all alternate takes on the characters in any given media are a "different Earth."
But some of you probably don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll start at the beginning.
The Worlds we Have Lost.
Originally, Earth One was the home of D.C. Comics' main line of superheroes. This was revealed in an issue of the Flash where the character finds himself on an alternate Earth where the original Flash was living as a retired superhero.
The Flash--whose secret identity was Barry Allen, and who wore a crimson bodysuit with a cowl--deduced that he was an inhabitant of one parallel Earth (Earth-One), who had managed to vibrate his way onto another Earth (Earth-Two), which was the home of the original Flash, which he had read about as a kid because writer Gardner Fox had accidentally tuned in on the second Earth in his dreams.
This concept was expanded to include Golden Age heroes who had been rebooted in a manner similar to the Flash's: that they'd been canceled in the late '40s/early '50s, and that they'd be sort-of reintroduced, but with different costumes, secret identities and origins. Generally speaking. The Green Lantern had received a similar reboot.
Then there was the Atom whose namesake didn't even share the same power, while there were also Hawkman and Hawkgirl (or Hawkwoman) who had basically the same costume and even the same real name, but were aliens rather than Earthlings who were lead to each-other by fate and reincarnation or something.
In any case, DC expanded this concept to include heroes with no Earth-One counterparts, other alternate Earths, characters like Superman and Batman who resembled their earlier versions, and original characters. There were also other alternate Earths, but the whole system came to an end in 1985's Crisis on Infinite Earths, though it was revived in 2005's Infinite Crisis.
I'm not here to give you the history of the parallel Earths, though, I plan to in a later entry. I'm just here to say that the idea of calling it Earth One has some interesting precedent, but it's also sort-of misleading, especially in the wake of both Infinite Crisis and The New 52 (seriously, let's just call it the post-Flashpoint DC Universe, New 52 is a dumb title). It's also strange that they call the line of books "Earth One" while also calling the novels themselves... So-and-So: Earth One when the stories don't even touch upon parallel Earths, so it doesn't make sense to the casual reader.
And the casual reader is the one they're after, isn't it?
Man o... uh, I mean... Superman: Earth One
The publicity for the book wasn't selling me on it. I liked the alterations to the costume, but I didn't like some of the things I was hearing. Really? They were gonna modernize it for a hip new generation by having fifty-something J. Michael Straczynski write it? We're supposed to be throttled by the fact that he's calling Jimmy Olsen Jim Olsen? Eeeek, can they doooo that? They also kept pimping it as somehow similar to Twilight, which irritated my LCS to the point where they had the books on the lowest shelf possible saying, "there! That's where Twilight-Superman belongs!"
I think he changed his mind after reading it, and for my money, I did to a bit.
But first, I'd like to air the fact that I, like many Superman fans, were wondering what form the new Superman movie would take. If it was a reboot and an attempt to be hipper, would this book be an indication of what it would be like?
Well, reading it, I felt that if that was the case, I'd be satisfied.
Don't get me wrong, I have some major problems with the book, not the least of which is that it's almost pointless when we see Clark only wearing his glasses and a suit at the end. True, his glasses would never actually fool anyone, but we're still supposed to think of them as part of the illusion. Yet, Lois, Jimmy and Perry have already seen him without them.
Another problem is the scene where Perry's criticizing Lois (who doesn't seem like much of a love-interest here) for including her opinion in what we can assume is a hard-news piece, but White is giving her the ever-esoteric little-known unwritten rule of journalism that you're not supposed to do that in that kind of story. Wow. JMS makes Perry White an author avatar to show off his background in journalism, but all he can really impart upon us is that you're not supposed to put your opinion in a hard-news story.
The story also continues on the tradition of Clark getting his job by turning in an interview with Superman... thereby making him the most unethical journalistic hack since Jayson Blair. Seriously, this was one thing in the Silver Age, but it also happened in Byrne's Man of Steel (not the movie) and it's common for Clark to get stories about Superman in just about every version.
But for all its flaws, Superman: Earth One is a fairly fun graphic novel.
As with Man of Steel, Clark spends most of the time in his street clothes and doesn't actually "become" Superman until about halfway through. Then it's a huge battle from an invading alien presence. Even though the villain looks like a member of Kiss, it still works.
For a while, I thought the OGN might be the future of comics, and if this must be the one to kick everything into gear, so be it. I wasn't exactly digging on the comics of the time, so I really wouldn't have been too sad to see this take over.
But then, of course, D.C. rebooted everything with the New 52.
I'm not here to talk about my opinion regarding D.C.'s current preeminent line of comics, except to say... how can I put this... I like them and I'm not impressed by so-called purists who rant and rave about how horrible it is. I'm also not offended that past events are no longer in canon, because this was always the case when something like Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour or Infinite Crisis would come about, not to mention that appearances in other media were never in canon, despite the importance of so many things from this...
To this...
So don't tell me they're disrespecting D.C. history by not making older comics a part of the canon.
In a way, the New 52 kind-of derailed Earth One, but in 2012, they finally got off their butts and put out the long-awaited Batman entry and guess what...
...it wasn't that great.
Batman: Ye... uh, I mean, Earth One
I picked this up at SDCC 2012 and didn't really know what to expect. When I got back to my hotel room, and popped it open, I found a scene where Batman was chasing a bad guy, took out one of his grappling devices and fell into some bags of trash after it malfunctioned.
This sort-of sets the tone for the book. This isn't the neigh-on infallible Batman we've been following as of late, but a kid learning the ropes. That is somewhat interesting, but taking it as far as this opening sequence does, it's a little impotent. No, Batman's not supposed to be infallible as some writers seem to think, but when he's downright clumsy, it's just kind-of pitying. And everyone who gives us Superman fans attitude about the character being so indestructible (something I'll lay into in a future blog), had better think this was a great character moment, because if they're saying, "no, Batman wouldn't go down like that," it just shows how full of crap they are.
We're also introduced to the supporting cast, including Alfred, who's more like his mentor than his butler. As in other versions, he's a veteran, but he uses it to train Bruce. He's like a character played by an aging Sean Connery. And if you think that's a departure, if anyone remembers Harvey Bullock, well, they completely change everything about him. Here, he's a cop who's turned into this pompous, blow-dried TV personality who does his job for the glory. At the end, we see him start to hit the bottle, but I don't know if that's really gonna make things right.
Oh, and who's the villain in all this? The Penguin. The Penguin is the mayor in this incarnation and this was something that's been hinted at in past incarnations, but here... when he's finally in office... it's just another corrupt man-about-town who's secretly a mob-boss.
The less said about the other villain--the Birthday Boy--the better.
All-in-all, Batman: Earth One is just kind-of there. Coming, as it did, after three huge films (yeah, yeah, Dark Knight Rises was on the eve of being released, but you know what I mean) it just didn't have as much resonance as Superman: Earth One, which came about as the world was eagerly anticipating Man of Steel and wanted some insight into what it would be like. There had been a Batman reboot on the horizon at the time, but I don't think too many fans were that excited. As Trentuss Magnuss alluded to in his podcast, I don't know who the target audience for this book is.
Like I said, I picked it up at SDCC. The previous year, the hype was about the New 52. Earth One may have once seemed like such a vibrant idea, but despite the predictable hate N52 has been getting, it is a much more dynamic and fleshed-out attempt at revitalizing the D.C. superhero stable.
Finally, check out this concept illustration from when Wizard speculated what would happen if D.C. did something similar to Ultimate Marvel. Look familiar?
Spider-Man 2... uh, I mean... Superman: Earth One
Seriously, Parasite as the main villain. Yeah, he's good for an episode or something, but as the main villain in their big follow-up? He's just so... street bound.
But then, that's the direction JMS was going in with this one. I was starting to lose faith that this would be the Superman book I could pitch my flagpole in and proclaim as a crowning-moment-of-awesome, and so this book did not disappoint on that level. It wasn't a crowning-moment-of-awesome. It was a crowning-moment-of-decent but derivative.
While I like the design of this Superman, I kind-of feel like he should be a little older looking. Ididn't seem like much time had gone by, but I think sooner-or-later, he's gonna have to get big... unless, of course, they're not doing anymore.
By this point, the New 52 had been on the market for about a year. The media had ballyhooed it as having breathed new life into D.C. and comics in general, though a subsequent Nielsen study suggested that it hadn't gotten too many people to start reading comics all together. While the consensus among many fans is negative toward New 52, it raised sales for D.C., and invigorated the line with an energy unseen in quite some time.
The Bottom Line
Ultimately, I think Earth One was an experiment that just never went anywhere. I can't call it a failure because sales seem to have been pretty good. It's just not a raving success either. This seemed to be D.C.'s long-awaited answer to Ultimate Marvel (as All-Star had already been labelled) but just as Ultimate Marvel eventually just became this alternate universe within the Marvel multiverse, Earth One has become just another "modernization" at a time when D.C.'s been pumping out "modernizations' all over the landscape of TV, movies and yes, the regular monthly comics.
In other words, why do you need this...
...when you've got this?
Basically, Earth One was an ill-timed attempt at something similar to Marvel's "Ultimate" line in a format that may work better for the overall concept, but where it took Marvel a whole decade to realize how pointless that line was, it's only been three years, and it already seems dead in its tracks. It's not something to follow regularly like a comic book or TV series, nor is it the event that a movie or even as interesting as a high-concept "Elseworlds" graphic novel is. Tellingly, a planned Wonder Woman: Earth One is being renamed Wonder Woman: the Trial of Diana Prince, almost as if to distance it from the books discussed in this writing.
