Stuff I Read This Week 3/26

Silver Surfer #1: Whereas the Fantastic Four have always, for the most part, focused more on the scientific exploration aspect of Marvel superheroics, the Silver Surfer has commonly branched off into a more philosophical aspect of space discovery. Rather than seeking out conventional bad guys, Norrin Radd has always seen fit to explore the endless spaceways, pondering his metallic navel to solve the mysteries of the universe. The only trouble with that sort of formula is that eventually, it gets to be sort of somber. Fortunately Dan Slott and THE Michael Allred come together this week to add a new dimension to the Surfer mythology that slightly diverts from the norm.

Slott takes the Silver Surfer in a lighthearted, more whimsical direction reminiscent of Doctor Who. Here we see a good natured cosmic journeyman wading on his board throughout the uncharted shores of space, atoning for his time serving under planet eating Galactus. Slott clearly has a good, seemingly effortless time ushering the Surfer through miniature worlds and planets with neverending cityscapes that look like those mazes on the back of Highlights magazines. The former herald's intention always comes across clear without feeling like a downer. Despite his perpetual quest for redemption and guilt always lurking in the corner, the primary focus is always the bottomless well of inquisitiveness and joy for the universe's eclectic lifeforms that drove him away from his previous profession. The Doctor Who similarities continue with the introduction of small town dreamer Dawn Greenwood, who is somehow connected to our hero's journey. Allred is the perfect talent for Slott's vision that comes across less like Star Trek and more like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. Going to from panel to panel feels like an laid back theme park ride, displaying one oddity after another.

Bottom Line: Dan Slott takes the Silver Surfer from brooding space hero to fun loving space wanderer with the same ease it takes Bruce Jenner to change faces. 9 out of 10.

All New Ghost Rider #1: Now, if ever there were a hero that needed a fresh start, it's Ghost Rider. Marvel has been desperate over the years to a). slap a new coat of paint on him that readers will actually go for and b). wash away the stink of the Nicolas Cage wasteland of suck that was the Ghost Rider films (when Idris Elba can't save your movies, it's time to reevaluate goals). They seem to keep rebooting this guy, but despite quality, nothing seems to stick. Now, it's a little early with this particular series for me to determine whether or not this one's going to go anywhere, but at least it's off to a good start.

In this issue, we meet our new protagonist Robbie Reyes, a hotheaded (see what I did there), working poor grease monkey who struggles to take care of his disabled little brother in a bad neighborhood. Apparently, he also moonlights as a street racer which leads to this new incarnation of the Rider rolling in what looks like Vin Diesel's trademark car from Fast and Furious. This origin offers up some semi-formulaic hero elements, but Felipe Smith manages to not hit us over the head with the usual exposition that would normally remind us that we've seen some of this before. Smith takes a very "show, don't tell" approach that is more than welcome here thanks to Tradd Moore's visuals. Here we see a striking anime style that wastes no time in coming across as refreshingly kinetic. Even when there's no action beats in place, every panel conveys a sense of motion and speed which feels appropriate for a book about a street racing Ghost Rider. The figures all have very clear, deliberate expressions that deliver intention, at times, without needing a word of dialogue. The highlight of this book, visually, was the Akira-esque drag race in the third act that left me reading it over again for details I might have missed.

Bottom Line: This book is definitely indicative of Marvel's drive towards new blood offering fresh takes on problematic titles. 8 out of 10.

Why Fans Should Suck It Up About Comic Book Movies

Recently, I came across an article from a conservative blogger about how he'd elected to never spend another dime on superhero films because Hollywood, at every turn, has completely raped his childhood and made the superheroes he grew up completely unbearable and he's not going to take it anymore.  Now, I'm acknowledging ahead of time that his blog post is mostly poorly argued and unresearched (which is the most I should probably expect from what is basically the Fox News version of my own blog), but his complaints are not uncommon among the fickle and sometimes downright hateful mob that is comic fandom. Granted, I understand why people would complain that studios are better off sticking closer to the source material. After all, NOBODY wants another Jonah Hex or X-Men: The Last Stand. Still, here a few things this guy....as well as a lot of fans....should consider.

1). Faithfulness to the source material does NOT always equate to a good movie. I mean, for a commendable project that packed tons of material into a two hour movie, Watchmen was such an imitation (despite some people having perfect bodies when they shouldn't, but....Hollywood) that it was practically hermetically sealed in its original comic packaging. And even still, it was met with mixed reviews among critics and fans. Tim Story's Fantastic Four was moderately close the comic (MODERATELY...except for Doctor Doom being a superpowered Donald Trump analog) and even that was considered mainly a failed attempt.

Green Lantern pretty much hit all the bullet points required of the Geoff Johns-ified version of Hal Jordan's (except for Movie Hal Jordan being a complete pussy) origin story and yet it still managed to be chastised as one of the worst comic movies of the past five years. Also, it eventually leads to fans complaining that they're not seeing anything they've never seen before. For years, Superman loyalists have whined and whined that we haven't seen anything out of those movies (until Man of Steel) that we've never seen before ("Really, Lex Luthor again???"). Now, I think that they're asking a LOT from Superman's list of villains, but they also have a point in the fact that remaining too close to what comic fans know doesn't do anything to add to the mythology of the hero in question. Taking an entire comic book and pasting onto the silver screen doesn't always lead to success. This leads to my next point......

2). New ideas from directors have been known to enhance comic book lore. When directors are allowed to toy with certain aspects of the source material, THAT is when innovation happens. People bitch and moan about X-Men all the time. Some people don't like Hugh Jackman's Wolverine because historically, Wolverine is a short, hairy guy who likes beer. This is entertaining enough for a comic book until you realize that if you translate that same description to a movie storyboard where you have cast a REAL actor, the person you're describing is Danny Devito.

I wasn't kidding. Giant smoke kraken.

Honestly, Green Lantern could have stood some outside innovation from Martin Campbell (except maybe not making Parallax out to be a former Green Lantern turned giant smoke kraken). General Zod was essentially a throwaway villain from an obscure issue of Adventure Comics until Richard Donner brought him to the forefront in Superman II. Furthermore, even though it was always canon that he was a small town kid, it wasn't really established that Clark Kent was raised on a farm in Kansas until Donner's movie placed Smallville in Kansas. Gotham City wasn't a perpetually gray, crime infested wasteland of art nouveau and towering gothic cathedrals until Tim Burton and Anton Furst designed it that way. More often than not, it takes a movie, something absorbed by the collective consciousness (comic nerds and casual moviegoers alike) to establish baseline characteristics for a superhero or their surroundings which simultaneously why Robert Downey Jr. IS Iron Man for the forseeable future and why DC could only benefit from making a Wonder Woman movie.

3). Once a comic becomes a movie, it's not exclusively yours anymore. You know who understands concepts like this? Children. When my friends and I played make believe Power Rangers, it was easy. There were commonly six of us and there were five Power Rangers (the Mighty Morphin days....Sweet Jesus, I'm old) so, except for the inevitable argument over who would be the Green Ranger, it was simple. Then, someone else would come along and want to play with us. Now, the likelihood of them wanting to be Zordon, the giant, omniscient floating head that told the Rangers to do shit was slim to none (although, in retrospect, when I put it that way, why the FUCK didn't I ever want to be Zordon), so they wanted to be a Ranger, too. Despite there only being six Rangers, there were, of course, more than six colors in the spectrum of colors, so fuck it. Little Amy can be the Violet Ranger and she can have a giant Velociraptor robot. Peace was maintained and playtime could continue.

The moral of that little story was that when other people want to be a part of what you're into, you have to share. In this day and age, movie adaptations are ideally the sign that a larger audience (Hollywood, non comic nerds, kids, whatever) wants to be in on what was once a very niche fiction of, at it's best, a million readers. Nerds (I'm guilty of this, too) have to understand that it's inevitable that when something becomes popular enough, corporate America will create a medium where it can be consumed by anyone. This happens with rap, spoken word, art house film-making, etc. Comic books aren't immune. The sad truth is that if Hollywood can fail us by keeping Channing Tatum in movies and allowing James Cameron to make Avatar sequels, it's not too farfetched that they would fuck up Ghost Rider and Elektra.

In summary....SUCK IT UP.