Why I do believe movie studios listen to comic book fans

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 Wizard Magazine'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.

The cast of Smallville when the series began.
© 2001 Warner Bros.

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.

I'm Facebook friends with Dina Meyer, and I thought Ashley
Scott was incredibly nice when I met her at SDCC.
© 2002 Warner Bros.

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.

© 2008 Marvel Entertainment

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.

This was enough to make me want to see
the G.I. Joe movie.
© 2008 Paramount

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.

Superman at 75 2013 in review

In many ways, different, but in many ways the same
as he ever was.  Superman at 75
© 1938, 1963, 1988 & 2013 D.C. Entertainment

This year was the year of the anniversary.  Not only did I turn thirty, but it also marked the 75th anniversary of the world's greatest superhero, and the world's greatest superhero team which includes the world's greatest superheroine and, arguably, the world's greatest supervillain.  In fact, it was the 50th anniversary of a lot of things.  Some good, like Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.  Some bad like the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  But since this is an entertainment blog, let's not get too involved in world events like that.

It was also the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' first #1 single and their first two albums.  So for your listening pleasure, he's a clip of them performing in 1963, a year before they became truly famous in America, but at a time when they were the talk of Great Britain.

But to me, personally, no anniversary was more important than that of the Man of Tomorrow himself, so let's get down to it.

Superman's 75th Anniversary

My entry in the San Diego Comic-Con Souvenir Book
Superman ™ & © D.C. Entertainment

As you may have guessed from most of my other entries, Superman is my favorite superhero and this has been a hell of a 75th anniversary, even though some people don't seem to agree.

For one thing, the comics have been solid, despite some people still being unhappy with the overall reboot of the D.C. Universe called the New 52, which began in 2011.  And if anyone from D.C. Entertainment is listening, I really hope you think about changing the name.  The main story I followed was in Superman, Superboy and Supergirl called "H'El On Earth."

It began with Clark quitting the Daily Planet after a lapse of ethics on the paper's part, but the larger story is about a long-lost Kryptonian astronaut emerging on Earth trying to take it over, and getting Supergirl to join his side, while doing some serious damage to Superboy, such that he has to wear Superman's armored costume to stay alive.  It also takes a look at Superman's new romantic relationship with Wonder Woman.

When I get married, this is what we're gonna wear.
© 2013 D.C. Entertainment

Speaking of that, I'm not thrilled with it and it doesn't really add much to the story.  I always loved the dynamic of Superman being able to dazzle Lois Lane with his powers and abilities, but wanting to win her over as Clark Kent.  When the reboot undid their marriage, I kind-of hoped they'd go back in that direction, but such was not the case.  Also, I was never particularly enamored of Wonder Woman's main love-interest Steve Trevor, but I like how he's used in the new D.C. Comics (though I'm not sure if he shows up in the main W.W. title much) as he's sort-of a non-powered, non costumed Captain America.

I'm not saying I want them to run back into the arms of their regular lovers, but… I don't know, I'm just kind-of bored with them as a couple.  They also got a new series together, but D.C. also gave Supes a title where he gets second billing with a certain hero who celebrates his 75th anniversary next year, the first saga of which was kind-of interesting, as it took place early-on in their careers and saw them journey to Earth-2 where they teamed up with the more experienced Superman and Batman of that universe.

We'll get to more about Superman and Batman in a bit, and don't worry, I'll be posting a lot of Batman-related posts in 2014 in commemoration of his 75th anniversary.

As well, D.C. continued to put out its Justice League comic, but I didn't really read it much.  Maybe it was the steep cover price or the the fact that there wasn't much information about the stories floating around for such a high-profile book.

Finally, D.C. began putting out a series called The Adventures of Superman which seemed to be aimed at the casual reader.  He wears his classic costume in it, and I'm not sure the stories follow any particular continuity.  There was a massive controversy over Orson Scott Card writing an issue because of his opposition to same-sex marriage, but I really don't want to talk about that here.

D.C. Comics continued to publish Superman comics outside the normal continuity.  I'm not sure if the kid-oriented series was still being published, but if not, I don't miss it.  It was cute, but I don't think you need to draw like a kid to sell books to kids.  Anyway, D.C. also put out a series that took place in the Smallville universe, taking off where the show left off (cool costume, but I rarely read it) and one that tied in with the game Injustice: Gods Among Us which I rarely read, and what I did read of it was vile.

Onto the game Injustice: Gods Among Us.  When I heard that the plot was going to be about Superman going bad after the Joker killed Lois and starting his own regime.  But then I learned that it was an alternate universe Superman that did that the real Superman was the one who saves the day, much like in the Justice Lords arc of animated Justice League series.

Here's a nice, typical battle, and no, this isn't me playing.

Injustice was a fun game, and had a fairly compelling story.  Yes, it's ridiculous and yes it's dark, but it's  still a lot of fun, and there's a lot of things you can unlock and items you can purchase, like alternate costumes, more playable characters and a series of mini-games under the S.T.A.R. Labs banner.

That might have been the big news, except for… well… this.

Yup.  I'm not really in the mood to talk about how this film wasn't the dark morass of joyless hell that some people make it out to be, how it didn't "sell his soul," or the double-standard by which the people bitching about all the destruction in downtown Metropolis would squeal like a pig for it if it were in ANY OTHER MOVIE, so instead I'm just gonna say this: WE WON, YOU LOST!!!

Please see the very first entry in this blog for more information.

Here, the American Way is more than just "all that stuff."
© 2013 Warner Bros.

 Man of Steel made more money both domestically and worldwide than Superman Returns which did far worse to what the character stands for.  See my first entry in this blog.  And with The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug pacing far behind Man of Steel, it looks like Superman will end up with the fourth biggest film of the year, which brings him almost back up to his late '70s/early '80s box office glory days (to be fair, Superman Returns made it to #6 in its year of release).  I wasn't exactly shocked that Iron Man 3 and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire were bigger hits, though Despicable Me was kind-of an upset.  But look at everything Superman did beat.  Thor: the Dark World, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, Fast & Furious 6 and Oz: the Great & Powerful.  Proof that Superman isn't some old relic of the past.

And those of you who said he was can get on your knees and kiss my ass.

If Man of Steel isn't quite your cup of tea, however, Warner Bros. did release a direct-to-DVD animated feature called Superman Unbound, which was based on a saga from the comics a few years ago called Brainiac featuring, as the main villain, well, Brainiac.

Superman and Supergirl: a partnership I'd have liked to
see more of in the '90s animated series, and which is
used to good effect in this film.
© Warner Première

This film was pretty good.  It had a great visual style and a terrific voice cast.  The plot is a little predictable (though aspects of the ending were fairly novel) and it's not so great that it's really worth buying at full price.  It's a Netflix kind of deal.  The best thing about it was Supergirl (voiced by Molly Quinn) taking on a more aggressive approach when Superman finds himself off planet.

As with most of Warners' direct-to-DVD films based on the D.C. Comics characters, this film isn't set in an existing continuity and goes out of its way to be incompatible with any.  That doesn't mean it's not entertaining, but I think overall, it would work better as the pilot for a new animated series.  Something Warners doesn't seem to interested in for whatever reason.

That wasn't the only direct-to-DVD feature with Superman this year.  The Flashpoint Paradox, based on the pivotal Flashpoint miniseries.  As I said about Flashpoint, however, Superman's role was much as it was in the comics.  That is to say that overall it was good, but don't watch it just for Superman's part because it's pitiful.  That, by the way, is not a criticism of the story itself, it could very well be they wanted it to be that way for artistic reasons, I'm just saying this to fans hoping to see a lot of him.

Unfortunately, the Man of Tomorrow's 75th anniversary also finds him with a broken fan base.  Often, the fandom of older Superman material means a hatedom for new and vice-versa.  There are a lot of fans who can enjoy Superman regardless of when the material came out and base their opinions only on the comic/show/film/game itself.  But we're becoming a dying breed, while battle-lines are being drawn.

On the one hand, you've got "culture aliens" who are usually younger and just seem to hate everything that came before 1986.  They're usually "anarchists" believing that the character must be modernized and updated as much as possible, and references to silver age comics, the Christopher Reeve films, etc. should be kept to a minimum.  Sometimes these fans aren't all that young, but they are "chicken littles" who, after the relative failure of Superman Returns, felt that if Man of Steel didn't do well, we could kiss any future Superman films goodbye.

A notable comic from my youth.  Dark
Superman stories are nothing new.
© 1993 D.C. Entertainment.

While those fans can be annoying, many "old timers" have jumped on bandwagons of hatedom toward almost all new material.  They too are "culture aliens," upset because the new stuff is supposedly darker (sometimes it is, but not as much as they make it out to be) and more realistic, as if anyone's ever complained about the later.  They often drift into "mainstream militants," "unappeasable fans," and usually see themselves as "purists," even though they seem to forget that Siegel & Shuster's original comics were more down-to-Earth in their subject matter, and that the character was more of a tough guy.

Finally, each of these sides seems to have developed their own "hipsters," with the former seeming more interested in "saving" him with an "updated" movie than any actual material that exists; or self-proclaimed "purists" who really only seem to like the character because of the kitschier elements and really don't take him as a serious character at all.  Extant fans can complain about the material, even if I think some people's criticisms on both sides are horseshit; but those who kind-of just pretend to care are honestly just embarrassing themselves and pissing me off.

Next year marks the 75th anniversary of Batman, and while the two characters have an incredibly symbiotic history, there are too many rival haters from the Bat-camp.  Not to mention it'll be the 75th anniversary of Marvel Entertainment, which has too many rival haters who trash D.C. as a whole (sometimes with Batman and rarely Superman or Green Lantern as exceptions) so it's going to be a strange year.  Don't get me wrong, I love Batman as much as the next guy, but part of being a true Batman fan means that even if you're not that familiar with Superman or don't read him regularly, trashing him isn't cool because if it weren't for Superman, Batman wouldn't exist.

And don't give me the "Batman was rebelling against Superman" crap.  The people who say that usually act like Batman was the first superhero to have "flaws" when Superman certainly had "flaws" in those days.  Heck, an early episode saw Superman destroy an entire ghetto.  He was a tough guy first.

I'm tired of the haters.  And for what it's worth, I'm also pretty tired of people who think that everything about the character sucked before 1986.

And yet, I'm just as tired of the longtime fans refusing to give the new material a shot or who think they must reject every change and I'm really sick and tired of people who are just marginally fans speaking for us, and in many cases, being just as guilty as the haters of rewriting history.

One of the main goals of this blog is to reinforce and clarify Superman's--and Batman's and everyone else's--history bringing forth different perspectives and questioning a lot of the sacred cows, whipping boys and preconceived notions of fandom.

And for a brief primer on the character's history, check this out from Zack Snyder and Bruce Timm…

A Brief Word on the 50th Anniversaries of the X-Men and the Avengers.

In a recent blog, I talked about the first appearance of the X-Men in 1963 and all-too-breifly touched upon how much they'd changed since then.  And yet, the original, unfiltered X-Men of 1963 (comic book time) had come to the present to shake things up.

© 2013 Marvel Entertainment

This idea couldn't have worked better.

On top of this great arc, the most popular X-Men had a modest success at the box office with The Wolverine, which marked Hugh Jackman's fifth appearance as the character (sixth if you count a cameo in X-Men: First Class) while Famke Janssen also appeared as Jean Grey.  I think of every film superheroine, Janssen as Jean is the greatest, because she had the beauty, poise and grace the role required, with acting chops to back it up; and while they never gave her anything even resembling a familiar costume from the comics, I never felt like it wasn't Jean we were watching.

Marvel's other big-time team obviously also had its share of things to celebrate.  While last year was its major year of achievement, with the enormously successful eponymous film, Iron Man 3, was this year's top-grossing picture, and Thor: the Dark World held its own, so-far coming in at just under $200 million, and proving that a superhero movie can open in November (I honestly can't remember any others that did).

I didn't follow Infinity in the comics, but I have caught a few episodes of the new Avengers Assemble animated series, which ties into the excellent Ultimate Spider-Man show and already has a spinoff called Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.  The roster of Avengers Assemble is the same as in the film, but with the addition of Falcon who will appear in Captain America: the Winter Soldier.

© 2013 Marvel Entertainment

And so as we say goodbye to a truly remarkable year, remember: I am right and if you disagree with me, you're wrong; but are free to leave some comments.

© 2013 Marvel Entertainment

First Appearances Blog

Disclaimer: in the past, I've had a blog focused on my artwork.  This is not such a blog, as I've more-or-less given up on that, and have decided to focus on this blog.  No artwork is mine unless explicitly stated, and upon finding information about photographers, I will include that.

Also, I'm aware that on this particular topic, I'm not the first to address the issue of superheroes' first appearances and that Linkara did a similar vodcast.  But mine is better than his :-)

One of the most interesting things about superheroes is how can be in their first appearances as opposed to later installments.  This is true of a lot of things.  It's just a fascinating part of the popular culture how a band can have a much different sound on their first album or a TV series can undergo many changes from the pilot episode to when it hits its stride.

Superheroes are, for the most part, no exception, so let's see how the five greatest superheroes first appeared.

Action Comics #1

In June of 1938, a revolution took place.  A revolution that began with a man in a red cape lifting a car over his head while some unsavory characters fled.

© 1938 D.C. Entertainment, art by Joe Shuster

Now, obviously the symbol on his chest is a far cry from the more familiar Superman-S we know today.  Note also that his red boots only go up to his ankles.  Think that's weird?  Well, in the pages of Action Comics #1, he just had blue boots with a strapped look to them.

Anyway, the story begins with a brief introduction of who Superman is and how he came to be.  It's more-or-less what you'd expect with a couple of differences: there's no mention of the Kents and it kind-of just implies that he grew up in an orphanage.  His powers are laid out in a very curt manner: he could leap an eight of a mile, lift "tremendous weights" and outrun a train.  The indication is that Kryptonians are simply more evolved and that his powers are similar to those of a grasshopper or an ant.  This is in contrast to Superman #1, the following year, which would indicate that his powers come from the Earth being smaller than Krypton.

The idea that his powers came from the sun manifested after the space race.

In any case, after a brief get-to-know-him page about Superman, we see him leaping along the night sky with a girl bound and gagged.  He's trying to get the governor to stay her execution.  The governor's aid isn't very cooperative and he even goes as far as to shoot Superman after Supes has broken down the steel door to the governor's bedroom.

This story has been loosely adapted into episodes of The Adventures of Superman and Superman: the Animated Series.

After that, the story heats up as Clark Kent catches wind that a man is beating his wife.  This is apparently the longest episode of spousal abuse in history as Superman has time to get over there and toss the guy around.  It therefore stands to reason that the wife is unconscious so that Superman can change back into Clark Kent as the police arrive.

A classic moment in comic book history... and the non-logic is just painful.

Oh, but the story's far from over: Lois Lane, Clark's co-worker at the Daily Star, thinks of Clark as something of a loser, but goes on a pity-date with him.  Predictably, some big lugs start moving in on her, and Clark acts like a wiener so as to avoid her suspecting that he's really Superman.  After they leave, he changes into Superman, and damages their car with one of them yelling, "IT'S THE DEVIL HIMSELF!"  He leaps over the car, and we're even treated to a shot that mirrors the cover.

Finally, Clark is assigned the story of a war brewing between a couple of small countries in central America.  He dons his costume once again and kidnaps a weapons dealer, ending our story on a cliffhanger as he leaps across a couple of buildings.

Yup.  All of that in one issue.

© 1986 D.C. Entertainment.  Art by John Byrne & Dick Giordano

This issue was quite possibly the most pivotal in comics history with the possible exception of More Fun Comics #1, a few years earlier.  That was the first issue of a monthly comic book to publish original (if derivative) content.  Action Comics #1 was soon reprinted along with the Superman stories in the next three issues, as Superman #1, making it basically the first trade paperback.

That version of the story expanded on the character's origin, including Ma & Pa Kent (she was called "Mary" in this issue and he wasn't given a name) and the build-up to the false execution story.  A creepy coincidence was that the murder victim in the story was named Jack Kennedy.  This month marks the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was nicknamed Jack in some circles.

This Superman, with his more abrasive manner and limited powers (there is a lot of debate as to when Superman gained the ability to fly, rather than just leap a great distance) was a far cry from Christopher Reeve, but that's what this blog is all about.

© 2011 D.C. Entertainment, art by Jim Lee & Scott Williams

Detective Comics #27

© 1939 D.C. Entertainment, art by Bob Kane

It didn't take long for Superman to be the biggest thing the comic book world had ever produced up to that point, and while Siegel & Shuster were legendarily screwed over as far as the rights to the character went, they were well-paid for the actual production of the comics.  So much that a young artist named Bob Kane wanted a little bit of that for himself.

The result was a character who would outdo Superman in terms of popularity decades later, yet who would spend a lot of time in the character's shadow.  The Bat-Man, as he was called here, is another major part of our pop culture landscape, but like Superman, very different when he first appeared.

© D.C. Entertainment. Art by Ethan Van Schiver

Commissioner Gordon is talking about a new case involving a vigilante known as the Bat-Man with his friend Bruce Wayne who has a problem: everything seems boring to him.  What a strange quirk, right?  His best friend's the top cop in this city (never identified as Gotham City or even New York city) and yet this pretty boy just finds it all so bland and blah.

Whatever.  After a guy named Lambert calls the police about his father's murder, who mentions that his father had business partners, one of whom was named Steven Crane, who by coincidence calls Lambert at just that moment and becomes excited when the police tells him he's been killed.  Crane fears he's next and we see that, well, he was.  However, the Bat-Man is on the roof of his house ready to take on some bad guys.  The very first rooftop battle between Batman and a bunch of generic gangsters is here!

Incidentally, Batman has no problem throwing them off the rooftops, unlike in later incarnations.  I'm gonna cut to the chase here, because I'm not here to reveal every single plot-point, and say that Batman does save someone from an elaborate death-trap: another Batman trope.

One interesting thing about the issue is that we don't learn until the end that Batman is, in reality, Bruce Wayne.  It's strange to think that this could be fodder for a cloak-and-dagger revelation and that there was a time when someone wouldn't know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are one in the same.

Here's another odd note: much has been made about Batman using a gun in early installments and yet, Batman not only doesn't use a gun here, he never uses any weapons at all.  Apparently, he's just a judo-master.  He drives a regular car, which is an obviously terrible idea and perhaps kind-of disappointing, but understandable.  Incidentally, the Batarang and Bat-Gyro (an early form of the Bat-Plane) would be introduced in D.C. #31, in a two-parter called "Batman Vs the Vampire."

Finally, Batman's motivation is not explained until issue #33.  You know: the famous story of Bruce Wayne's parents being shot to death.  Yup, for half-a-year, this all-important part of the Batman myth was simply not a part of his story.

About a year after he was introduced, Batman would receive a sidekick named Robin and, the following month, would get his own series, the first issue of which introduced the Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin.  The year after that, the original Batmobile was introduced and throughout the 1940s, the seeds of Batman's cult were sewn.

© circa 2012 D.C. Entertainment, art by Ivan Reis, Joe Prado and Rod Reid

The Incredible Hulk #1

© 1962, Marvel Entertainment, art by Jack Kirby

From the Great Depression to Camelot, we jump forward to a new era.  A subset of the Silver Age called the Marvel Age.  So far, we've seen two superheroes whose early beginnings were far different from what the world has come to expect.  Superman couldn't fly or see through walls, Batman didn't have any weapons.  But while the Incredible Hulk had his signature power from day one (uh... he's strong), he was a very different character.

The origin is no-doubt familiar.  Dr. Bruce Banner is working on an experimental gamma bomb, but he sees a teenager enter the test site.  As he runs out to save him, a fellow scientist sabotages him by ordering that they continue the countdown, so when the gamma bomb goes off, he's caught in the blast.  He seems fine at first, but eventually, the sun goes down and...

...yes, that's right, his transformation is triggered by the transition from day to night.  But anyway, he turns into this big, gray...

...yes, that's right, he was gray in his first appearance.  The reason he became green was because Stan felt green printed better...

...and he became the Incredible Hulk, and he was a big ass hole.

Yup.  He wasn't particularly dumb in this instance, but he was a friggin' jerk.  Every time he saw someone he considered "weak," he just kind-of recoiled in disgust.  Yes, the idea that he hated his Bruce Banner identity is a staple of the character, but he even feels that way about Betty Ross, the love interest.

It's hard to imagine that this character would one day be as popular as Superman and Batman.  I have trouble even calling him a superhero, because in the end, he doesn't even really seem to save the day as the Hulk, but as Dr. Banner.

© Marvel Entertainment

I'll be the first to admit that I like the Hulk better in small doses.  The various animated series' have been great, and I love the '70s TV series (as unfaithful as it was).  As for the movies, well, I thought both the Eric Bana film and the one with Edward Norton had their pros and cons (the former tried to be more artsy while the later was more of a conventional action film, to which I say horses for courses) but he looked fake in both.  The effect in The Avengers was great.  However, I never really got to into his history.

Anyway, back to the first appearance.  When Banner went onto the test site to save Rick, the countdown was re-initiated by a scientist named Igor who, it is revealed, was trying to sabotage Bruce for the Soviets.  Or something.  The Hulk meanders back to Banner's home to find Igor rummaging through his belongings and roughs him up, while proclaiming his hatred for the weaklings Rick Jones, Igor and, well, humans in general.

In fact, it almost looks like the Hulk is about to kill Rick when the sun comes back up.  He even utters the phrase, "THE WORLD IS MINE!!!" as if we really are supposed to see him as a villain.  After-all, despite the success of some superheroes in the '40s (most notably SubMarriner and Captain America, the former having been reused as an antagonist in Fantastic Four stories), Marvel's stock in trade was still monster books.  The Hulk was at-least as much of a monster as a superhero.  It was appropriate that Universal had the rights to the character for so long because he fits right in the world of Frankenstein and the Wolf Man.

Then, story gives us the villain known as the Gargoyle, who's in cahoots with the Soviet Empire as well.  It's not that often that a signature villain appears in the first issue, though it's not unheard of either.  By the end of the issue, Doctor Banner manages to cure him of his freakish appearance, and he sacrifices himself against a squad of Soviet soldiers having defected as a result of the treatment.

Finally, the issue does introduce the supporting characters General Ross and his daughter Betty, who were the Hulk's greatest enemy and love interest, respectively.  In recent years, he would go on to become the Red Hulk, and she became the Red She Hulk.  But in her first appearance, she was one of Marvel's sexiest leading ladies of the day.  However, her scientific acumen is not evident in this first appearance and I'm not sure when it made manifest.

The Incredible Hulk's history is almost unfathomable at this point, but with The Avengers, he's more popular than at any point since the end of the days of Lou Ferrigno running around in body paint.  There's a new animated series, and while the Hulk isn't the total jerk of this issue, it does seem like Marvel's more interested in portraying at-least a somewhat intelligent Hulk than the mindless brute he's usually presented as.  Just as long as he's not an asshole like in this, I'm cool with that.

© 2013 Marvel Entertainment

Amazing Fantasy #15

© 1962 Marvel Entertainment, art by Jack Kirby

We go from a bizarre first appearance to one of the greatest stories in comic book history, and to a first appearance in which the hero was more-or-less fully formed.  The costume was basically the signature costume (despite the web pattern and presence of the odd little web-wings), all of his powers were present and accounted for, and his personality is what we would come to know throughout the years.  This 15-page story would form the basis of two major motion pictures, and yet, a 1968 saturday morning cartoon with limited animation was almost as effective and dramatic.

The story begins with typical teenage nerd Peter Parker being picked on by his peers.  After being bitten by a radioactive spider, he gains its powers (except the web spinning, but he creates a device for it) and tries to become a wrestler and TV personality.  After a performance, he sees some cops running after a burglar, but refuses to help them.  He's looking out for #1 and not about to get involved.

Unfortunately, Peter comes home to find that his uncle Ben has been shot and killed.  Enraged, Peter puts on his costume and looks for the criminal.  After managing to track him down, Peter kicks his ass, then realizes he's the same guy he let slip past him.

The realization that his refusal to do the right thing cost him his uncle made Peter realize that he must use his powers for good, and hence was born Spider-Man.

© Marvel Entertainment.  Art by John Romita Jr.

Unlike other superhero origins, both Spidey's motivation and the acquisition of his powers were important.  The death of Uncle Ben was inadvertently Spider-Man's fault, and it's a sin for which he must spend the rest of his life in atonement.  The moral of this story is clear: if you allow evil to take root, it will come back to haunt you.

One of the reasons this was one of my favorite first appearances was that I first got an early copy of the Marvel Masterworks edition at the Smithsonian gift shop when I was ten.  It had this issue and the five subsequent issues of The Amazing Spider-Man and that's when I really started to think, "this is what it's all about."  At the time, I was following Reign of the Supermen and whatever Batman comics I happened to pick up.  I really hadn't been that into Spider-Man's ongoing comics at the time, even though like most people, I thought he was so cool.  Well, I realized that these first several stories were the foundation of the character and after a while, I think he kind-of lost something.  Of course, Marvel couldn't just put out story after story of Peter being picked on at school then having to save the world from a supervillian after failing earlier on in the story.  But I do find it hard to understand some of the choices Marvel made with him in later years.

Ironically, this was almost the last appearance of Spider-Man as well.  Publisher Martin Goodman told Spider-Man creator Stan Lee that he wasn't crazy about the character and so Stan just kind-of put him in this issue which was the final issue of Amazing Fantasy.  The character returned a year later in his own comic book, however, after readers proclaimed that he was a terrific superhero.

A decade ago, Spider-Man was bar-none the most popular superhero in the world, but recently, the mania seems to have died down.  The latest film The Amazing Spider-Man was a success, but nowhere near the level of the trilogy starring Tobey Maguire.  Time will tell how next year's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 performs at the box office, but in the meantime, it's clear that the character's seen better days especially in the comics where he's been killed off and his arch-nemisis' mind is inhabiting his body.

© 2013 Marvel Entertainment.

Tales of Suspense #39

© 1962 Marvel Entertainment.  Art by Jack Kirby

Finally, we take a look at the first appearance of Marvel's current standard-bearer.  Yes, historically, that honor has belonged to Spider-Man, but Iron Man goes back almost as far, and has languished in underrated-land until 2008 when his cinematic debut thrusted him to the top.  Yes, that was the year during which Iron Man was able to stand up to the onslaught of Batman's most masterful cinematic exploit.

While he was not nearly as complete in his first issue (the clunky armor you see toward the beginning of the film was his original costume), the basic story of how he was captured by foreign enemies who wanted him to build them a weapon and the problem with shrapnel entering his heart, were there from day one.

Obviously, his costume was updated over the years, until we got something along the lines of his more famous gear.  But it's so strange to think about the bulky gray armor as his intended permanent look.

© Marvel Entertainment

Now, differences from what we may be used to include the fact that this took place in Vietnam, rather than Afghanistan.  After-all, this was in 1962, and while it was before the actual war began, the U.S. had been sending in advisors.  This lead to the stereotypical villains like Wong-Chu and the rest.  Also, while Iron Man has gadgets, he kind-of grabs them and uses them, like a flair gun or a magnet.  They aren't just attachments to his suit like in most versions.

Iron Man's first appearance was awesome, but the following few issues were clunkers.  I'm not sure exactly when the character started to get good again, but if you read the issue where he turns the original armor gold (his third, I believe) it's really kind-of strange.  People are afraid of him, so he just gives it a golden finish and everyone loves him?

It's not hard to find ways to compare Iron Man to D.C.'s top two: Superman and Batman.  His suit basically enables him to fly and blast things more-or-less like Superman can do.  Like Batman, he's a wealthy industrialist who creates an arsenal of weapons.  But what made him unique--even though they've sometimes done away with this--is his heart, as well as the road he's gone down.

© Marvel Entertainment.

I chose these heroes because it's clear that these are, at this time, the most important superheroes.  Some might argue that I should have included Wolverine instead of Iron Man, but right now, Iron Man is the biggest hero at the box office.  I'm also glad to see that Superman has done well at the box office after so many naysayers labeled him as "dated."

I plan to do more of these "first appearances" blogs, though I don't want this to be the ultimate focus of this blog.