Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘superman’

You want insults? We got insults! Step right up and see our collection of barbs, jibes, cuts, put-downs, take-downs, and kick-em-when-they’re-downs! All genre-specific and guaranteed to make the geek in your life wish he’d never heard of J.J. Abrams! (Which is all of us, frankly.)

Try these on for size…

You couldn’t shoot a basket if you were guarded by a jawa.

You couldn’t sell a comb to an Ewok (or, if you’re really feeling vicious): You couldn’t sell in Infinity Stone to Thanos.

You’re so dumb, you thought the Captain’s Woman was his cleaning lady.

You’re so geeky that every May you go out and buy a Mothra’s Day card.

You probably watch the beginning of every Superman movie so you came see where he came from.

You’re so gullible, I’ve got a bridge on the Enterprise to sell you.

You’re so clueless you actually believe Sheldon is the smartest guy in the room (even though everyone knows it’s Penny).

You can’t be a Sith Lord because you’re too scared of the dark.

And then, when your target is all softened up and reeling, hit ’em with your Sunday Punch:

I hear you actually liked the last Fantastic Four movie.

Remember, use these sparingly. They can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

If you know anything about me by now, it’s that I’m all about the work. If you’re going to do it, do it right. Respect the reader. You aren’t Amazon or Facebook or a cable company (unless you are), with a near-monopoly and the assurance that people will use your product regardless, because they have little choice. You are one creator among thousands, and a button-push away from oblivion (at least as far as any individual consumer is concerned).

Which is why is makes me so angry that concern with craft is going the way of the dinosaur. I’m not talking about self-publishing; that’s an easy target. True, the attention to details varies wildly, but it’s the Wild West, and anyone venturing therein knows that he’s taking his chances. I’m talking about people who not only know better, they have lines of defense against such things: editors and proofreaders and continuity-checkers.

More and more, the big players are getting away with throwing whatever garbage they want on the page or screen and calling it “art,” whether it’s re-making a classic movie with new characters (The Force Awakens), or re-booting an old series with a “new timeline” and forgetting everything that made the old series worth re-booting (Star Trek), or just the awful writing in a best-selling series of thrillers (where do I start?). And the reason they get away with it is because people will buy into a big, splashy franchise simply because it is big and splashy.

Now, such franchises aren’t invulnerable–unlike some of their stars. The DCU has suffered badly (by its standards) for its treatment of Batman, Superman, and the Justice League. (This year, it is appropriately ironic that Wonder Woman saved the day for the boys.) And maybe enough losses at the box office will effect change, although it will be slow, if it comes.

I’m not asking that every book, TV show, and movie be a classic, or even good for that matter. All I’m asking is that if you want my money, you respect me for more than my wallet. I have a brain. I appreciate entertainment created by someone who cared enough to do it right (e.g., the scrolling prologue of Star Wars).

And if it’s big and splashy as well as smart, I’ll gladly be your fan.

#SFWApro

 

 

Read Full Post »

Today is Errol Flynn‘s birthday. If you don’t know who Errol Flynn was, you can just leave right now, because the rest of this post won’t mean a thing to you. Or, better yet, you can email me for a list of movies that will change your life. Your choice.

Regardless, those of you who remain should follow me: We all know how popular comic book movies are today, and we all know that back in the Golden Age of the 1930s, there were no comic books movies because…there were no comic books (until 1938). Whether this contributes to the 1930s being the Golden Age is left to debate. But what if there had been comic books (and comic books movies) in the 1930s? What if Superman and Batman and Spider-Man had existed during the Depression–and what if all of those superstars had played them?

I have some ideas. Some will be, “Well, of course!” and some will be controversial. But the idea of any of these legendary actors playing any of these roles…that’s just too good an opportunity to pass up.

Errol Flynn: Flynn is first up, not only because it’s his birthday, but as someone dear to me has said, “He put the ‘swash’ in swashbuckle.” On the DC side, I know it’s cliched, but I really can’t see Flynn playing anyone better than Green Arrow. On the Marvel side, however, he was born to play Fandral of Thor’s buddies, the Warriors Three.*

Randolph Scott: Superman. Duh.

Maureen O’Sullivan: Wonder Woman. I know the look is wrong, but I don’t care. Or the Black Widow (where she would fit the look much better).

Tyrone Power: Batman. Again, duh. He played Zorro. Bruce Wayne would never be the same. Or Iron Man. Tyrone Power as Tony Stark? Box office platinum.

Basil Rathbone: In the DCU, he could be stuck in the role of Alfred Pennyworth (whom he would make a headliner). But he might never move over from Marvel, where he would play…Doctor Strange.

Johnny Weissmuller: Aquaman/Namor the Sub-mariner. Typecasting, yes, but he was the best swimmer in Hollywood.

I am wracking my brain trying to come up with roles for William Powell and Myrna Loy, but I can’t. And I really want to. Help me.

 

*Unfortunately, Mr. Flynn was never available to play either of these roles, because he was solidly under contract portraying Han Solo.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

We went to a presentation the other day featuring cast members and show runners from the CW‘s four superhero shows: Supergirl, The Flash, Arrow, and Legends of Tomorrow. We had a fine time; all of the panelists were entertaining and the whole thing was moderated by Kevin Smith, who had the audience in stitches. Kevin’s introduction described how as a kid, he had read comic books to be transported, and how they always made him feel like a better person because they were all about the good guys and their triumphs.

This made me think: Literature is virtually always about the good guys winning. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, for example George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman (no relation to The Flash), but you’d really be hard-pressed to find a book or comic where in the end you weren’t supposed to root for the good guys. Oftimes, the good guys are bad guys, but those are anti-heroes, bad guys you root for because their adversaries are even worse. Are with you with me so far? Of course you are, this isn’t controversial.

So why is it, then, that comic books are blamed for the decline of Western Civilization?* These are highly moralistic stories. The good guys virtually always win. They put their lives on the line, without pay, issue after issue for decades, sometimes (in the case of Marvel heroes) in the face of public ridicule, scorn, and even persecution. Who doesn’t want to live in a society where everyone is ready and willing to take on evil and stand up to oppression? How can a medium which produced Superman be bad?

I know a lot of the knocks against comic books are the same as are leveled against science fiction: it’s juvenile, it’s poorly written, it’s unbelievable. And I ask each of those the same thing: Have you read this stuff lately? Have you ever read this stuff?

Granted, comic books have a tendency to make you believe that violence (no matter how reluctantly practiced) solves every problem. But I would argue that being a “force” is less important than being a “force for good,” or at least it was when I was reading.

When I was a kid, reading comic books was not viewed by my parents as an optimal use of my time. I would argue though, that comic books (and later pulp novels) did as much to form my moral outlook as religious education, or upbringing. I’m not saying I’m going to stand in front of a runaway truck or face down bank robbers–but I am saying that if I had a little influx of cosmic energy, you might hear…

“Who is that masked man, anyway? He’s straight out of a comic book!”

 

*Yes, there were the EC comics of the 1950s. But really, it was the 1950s!

#SFWApro

Read Full Post »

Recently, Entertainment Weekly ran an piece on “The 50 Most Powerful Superheroes.” Not limited to actual power(s), this article used criteria such as “mythology,” “modern relevance,” and “bankability,” in addition to sheer strength. Each item was worth 10 points, with the exception of “cultural impact,” which was worth 20. A perfect score was 100.

In the main, I had no argument with their choices; after all, there were 50 heroes to choose from, and all of these studies are as subjective as they are non-scientific. But right up front, I have to take issue with their choices. You see, before I started the list, I thought: “Well, obviously Superman is number one.” Wrong. Superman was number four. Number one was Wonder Woman.

Now I have never been a Wonder Woman fan, but I understand her standing in the pantheon. I also understand that at this particular moment in history, she is leading the DC charge. (Forget Superman and the guy with the mask; they’re blown until DC figures out how to make a Marvel movie.) But

Wonder Woman is not Superman. She is not as powerful (10 points), doesn’t have the nemesis (10 points), the mythology or the cultural impact. She does have the edge in cultural relevance, but bankability? She has had one TV series which lasted longer than it should have. She has a movie coming out, and it may be a huge hit, but it hasn’t come out yet. Superman has had four TV series (counting Superboy), and seven movies. Like it or not, Superman is the reason there’s a DC movie universe today (or a Marvel movie universe, for that matter).

They picked Wonder Woman because she’s the trendy choice. She has a long way to go before she reaches the international and historical plateau that Superman occupies. DC is choosing to lower the bar that she must hurdle (not her fault), but she still has to hurdle it.

I’ll give her credit, though. She’s off to a running start.

Read Full Post »

Recently I talked about how the Superman movie “Man of Steel” had totally blown the the character by having Superman kill his fellow Kryptonian, Zod. (Sorry if that was a spoiler.) The main thrust is that the only thing keeping Superman from taking over the Earth (and maybe a good chunk of the universe) is his Midwestern-raised, strict moral code. Really, the only thing stopping a guy that powerful is himself. And now that he’s crossed that bridge, there isn’t any coming back to the other side.

But there is never so great an affront to a famous fictional character so great that someone cannot make it bigger. They screwed up Atticus Finch, but at least that was written by the author (if never meant to be released). They messed up Superman, but you can argue the morality of what he did, and how it was an extreme measure that he will not be forced to repeat, and that, while a betrayal of the character, it would only affect him going forward; it does not touch his past. He is still the man he was.

Alas, as I said, there is always a way to make things worse. And this latest travesty comes from a surprising source. Marvel has managed to achieve a goal that would have been unthinkable ten years ago: It has made Captain America arguably more popular than Superman. And then it made a misstep that would have been unthinkable ten days ago: It announced that everything you think you know, everything you have ever read, everything you have ever believed about Captain America (morally speaking the Superman of the Marvel universe), is wrong. Not only is Captain America not the fine, upstanding, patriotic symbol of freedom we were always told he was, he’s actually a villain.

Seriously?

It is common for long-running fictional franchises to throw in a major curveball every few years to try to keep things fresh. Usually, you “kill” the hero, or give him (or her) a new love interest, move him to a new city, etc. And it has become all-too-popular in recent years to re-boot characters or even entire universes to shake up storylines and give new fans an entry point. DC has done it so many times they’re now re-booting their re-boots.

But to take a once-second tier character, pump up  his popularity  by orders of magnitude through a series of blockbuster movies, and then tell the world that he was never the guy they thought he was, but was actually working for the other side all the time? Are you nuts? Captain America has beaten the Red Skull so many times you wonder why the Skull even bothers to show up for work. And I’m supposed to believe that they’re on the same side?

That’s like saying Superman has secretly been on Lex Luthor’s payroll since 1939. Or that Bruce Wayne has been playing Batman and the Joker for fifty years. It is more than a complete misunderstanding of the character, it is a punch in the gut to every kid who ever shelled out 10 cents or 25 cents or $1.25 to read one of his adventures–not to mention the millions who shelled out $12 or more to see his movies. This isn’t a joke; it’s a sick joke.

Now, I am more familiar than most with the idea that nothing in comics is permanent. If they can come up with a way to explain how Krypton never exploded, they will. So this, too, will pass. It may not even be real. But it could have serious long-term effects. First, if this is not some kind of undercover deal Cap is on, all of his established fans are going to leave. This isn’t what they signed on for. Second, the new fans–well, why would anyone start buying Captain America now? He’s a bad guy. And how long can they maintain that storyline? How long will people watch him not fight the Red Skull, or lie to the Avengers?

People change. Characters change. But “change” is not the same as, “Ha ha. Fooled you. Uncle Ben faked his death for the insurance money. And Aunt May was in on it.”

You can fool all of the people some of the time. That’s why mysteries are so popular. But in the end you have to play fair, not change the rules to suit your conclusion. Rewriting a 70-year-old character’s entire life to wipe out the reason why people have bought into it for so long? It’s not fair. It’s not right. All it’s going to do is make your fans say, “You know, now that I think about it, ‘Man of Steel’ wasn’t so bad…”

#SFWApro

Read Full Post »

There’ve been a lot of comparisons between Warner Bros.’ Batman v Superman and Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War. (I haven’t seen either, which puts me in a great position to talk about them. No, really, it does, because I’m not biased by having seen only one.)* The main question is why the latter resonates with audiences when the former does not. Yes, I know B v S made a ton of money, but we’re going to be talking about audience engagement here.

The comparisons seem to focus on the two studios’ franchises, which may be unfair because the DC “cinematic universe” is only two movies old. (One of the glaring differences is that Marvel’s movie universe is cohesive going back years, while DC’s is fragmented going back more than a couple of films. And don’t let’s digress into TV.) As far as you can legitimately compare and contrast, however, the difference is plainly one of tone. And that’s down to the writing. (And the director, but the writing is what we see on screen, so we’ll go with that.)

Marvel has proven adept at predicting what tone the audience will want in relation to each character. From Iron Man’s origin, leavened with humor, to Captain America showing us the importance of being earnest, to the Guardians’ and Ant-Man’s serious business wrapped up in slapstick, each has managed to find its own sure footing, leading to critical (as well as financial) success. WB/DC, on the other hand, has so far resorted to making every film a Batman film, which works great…for Batman.

Superman…not so much.

Which raises the question: For whom are you writing–the author or the audience? Characters must be true to themselves, but audiences won’t read (or watch) characters they don’t like. This is doubly so when you’re dealing with already established characters. How far can you change them? Do you have the right to change them? After all, the conglomerate that employs you owns those characters, but neither of you created them. So if you turn Superman into a darker, more flawed person–how far can you go? And do you continue to follow your own vision when the audience has made it clear (verbally if not financially) that it doesn’t like where you’re going?

When it comes to that, how much are you entitled to change the character when the audience does like where you’re going? Arthur Conan Doyle did not write the same Sherlock Holmes as we’ve seen in the last two movies (and who bears an uncanny resemblance to Tony Stark), but people don’t seem to mind the new version.

In the end, the marketplace will decide, as it always does, and its decision will be seen as final. Currently, the marketplace is supporting both studios’ visions. It will probably continue to do so. But public opinion is fickle, and one glaring misstep may mean disaster. Then again, considering other iconic franchises have been butchered lately with little affect on their bottom lines, maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe audiences will keep going in the hopes that this time it will be better–or maybe they really like this stuff no matter who’s making it, and they’re complaining because, like Batman and Superman, and Captain America and Iron Man, they just like to argue, and a really top-notch supervillain is hard to find.

*Yeah, I’m not buying it either.

#SFWApro

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »