A Few Things About Avengers: Age of Ultron

SPOILERS SPOILERS ::Okay, I'm a little too tired this week to write a full on review for Avengers: Age of Ultron, but I will say overall that I really enjoyed the movie as a whole. I thought it was "on par with" but not better than the first one which, in fairness, had a LOT less of a balancing act to pull off on many levels. For the interest of brevity, I'll just do a simple break down of what I liked and what I didn't like. :: SPOILERS SPOILERS

Likes:

More Hawkeye: Granted, we'll NEVER see a Hawkeye/Mockingbird romance thanks to Agents of SHIELD (where Bobbi Morse is a godsend), it was nice to get some more depth to Barton's character while still getting the smartass Avengers mainstay we all know and love. Not everyone liked the visit to Hawkeye's family, but I think it showed depth and agency in a character that we didn't get to know at all in the first movie because of Loki and The Shittiest Mind Control Of All Time. It also goes to show that we're at a point in the genre where people have to learn to let go and consider these movies as much of an alternative as Ultimate Marvel or Marvel Noir or Marvel Mangaverse and that's okay. Many readers like knowing that comic movies are all hitting the right story beats because it's a way for fans to evaluate what they're watching, but changing things in the narrative like Barton's family is also necessary and keeps readers on their toes so they're getting something fresh.

Anyone who didn't feel like a kid again at this
moment is lying to themselves.

Vision: Paul Bettany has always been a good fit as Jarvis, but the Vision is a great fit for him. Honestly, I never even thought a character like him would end up making it to the big screen, but Whedon really pulled it off visually.

Ultron: Anyone whose ever watched The Blacklist knows James Spader was the perfect voice for an evil robot who is, at times, a little too human for his own good. I know not everyone liked the quirkiness, but honestly, I was reading the latest original graphic novel, Rage of Ultron (amazing one shot, by the way) and the titular villain is a much more traditional version that longtime fans are used to. Even though Rick Remender did a masterful job of encompassing that classic voice for Ultron, the first thing I thought was "Thank God for James Spader." The Ultron that a lot of people were expecting, this dry yet self aware technological Frankenstein monster of sorts wouldn't have translated well. First of all, it's a hard sell that Tony Stark would create an artificial intelligence that didn't have any sense of humor. Second of all, yes, it wouldn't be hard to a more cerebral version of Ultron, but that "What am I? Why did you create me?" brand of existentialism just doesn't gel well with...let's face it...a popcorn movie. Just ask I, Robot.

Joss Whedon: You can tell there are certain points in the movie and the script where Whedon has a little more flexibility in making the film he wanted to make (You can also tell that there are points where he couldn't get the studio's foot off of his neck to save his life, but that's a whole other post). It's no secret that with these franchise blockbusters, the car is already built and the director just makes sure the thing doesn't run itself off the freeway into the river. But in this case, Whedon seems to have enough geek cred that Kevin Feige managed to climb out of his ass long enough to let him direct. This movie seemed to have more of his trademark snark and self aware characters. I think the importance of this Whedon's role in this movie is that

Dislikes:

Not enough Vision: He was pretty key to the story and the time we spent with him was worthwhile, but the downside to Whedon's balancing act of giving all the Avengers proper screentime was that we only spent a solid ten minutes with a brand new Avenger who was directly tied to the primary villain.

Widow/Banner Romance: Okay, I realize that, in attempting to humanize relatively static characters, the default way to go is usually to get them laid. But this....was a little weird. Don't get me wrong. Whedon gave them more than enough of that usual Whedon charm so that it wasn't unwatchable, but it was awkward. Bruce Banner is possibly the most self aware of all the Avengers in the same way someone with a terminal illness would be. There's really no need to keep hammering that point home by throwing a pretty lady at him. Making the Black Widow a big softie is the equivalent of making Wolverine a softie who weeps over Jean Grey's body. And don't even get me started on the problematic gender politics of that little Red Room speech where not being able to give birth somehow makes her a monster. I applaud them for trying to give Widow some layers that we're not used to because the mainstay things we as readers love about Widow could be dicey over time with a mainstream audience. But it was just odd.

In Defense of Darkman or....Superhero Movies Hollywood Could Learn Something From

With this year in superhero films wrapped up, Marvel ready to shove out their new batch and DC getting everyone's mouths watering with Arrow being a breakout success (despite mixed reviews from fanboys) their Flash television pilot, and of course the several rumors and announcements behind the casting of Man of Steel 2: The Steel Strikes Back, I thought I'd pull a few movies with cult success (despite questionable box office numbers) out of the vault and take a brief look at some of the lessons modern comic book cinema could take from them

Darkman: It sort of saddens me that we're quickly approaching (if we're not already in the midst of) a generation that will never know the glory that is Darkman. When you watch Sam Raimi's first jump into the superhero genre, it's actually a big insight into why he got tapped for the Spider-Man series in the first place. Even though, at first glance, it comes across as a teenager's ultraviolent fantasy, it's actually very indicative of what many comics were at the fringes of early comic culture: melodramatic pulp adventure. A psychotic, disfigured scientist returns from "death" to take revenge on the mobsters and crooked officials responsible? If Darkman had originated as a comic book hero, the story itself would have been more of a horror story than anything and Raimi has a far better understanding of the comic book genre than anyone gives him credit for. The movie made absolutely NO apologies for the fact that Peyton Westlake was more or less just a really demented guy who a). wanted his face back and b). wanted to kill a lot of people (basically what would happen if someone set Kanye West on fire).

Moral of the Story: The lesson that Current Hollywood can (and should but won't) take from this movie is that every superhero film doesn't have to be one of virtue because not every superhero is a virtuous one nor should they be. This is where the Punisher and Ghost Rider movies went wrong (well, they went wrong a LOT of places...Nic Cage being a notable one....but virtue was prime among their sins).


The Phantom: Now, here's a movie that holds a very special place in my heart while many others have forgotten about for understandable reasons. The 1989 Batman was something of a game changer for superhero movies. When Jack Nicholson's Joker uttered the line "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"....his reaction was one that turned out to mirror the audience's. I mean, for the time in which it was conceived, watching a hero swing onto rooftops, lob smoke bombs and evade the law in a tricked out car was pretty goddamned exciting. Then, you find yourself watching a period piece about hero you mainly only know from the comics section of your newspaper. So, needless to say, Lee Falk's jungle hero had the odds against him right out of the gate. He was an Indiana Jones-type hero at a time when moviegoers had decided they were pretty much over Indiana Jones.



Having said that, there's a lot to learn from The Phantom. First of all, there's Billy Zane's performance. With a period piece like this, it's importance not to take yourself too seriously. Zane went a different way than what would be expected from a story about a mythical hero who lives in a secret jungle surrounded by tree people who revere him as a living ghost protector. Let's face it...if you go dark and play the Phantom like a guy He dashed to and fro, punching and shooting with a wink, a smile and a "pardon me, ma'am" at every turn. We call this kind of shit "cheesy" and "hamfisted" nowadays, but it's also the sort of thing that makes us smile and induces a feeling of escape which is what we commonly go to the movies for in the first place.

One of the best "quiet as kept" scenes is when Phantom is chasing thugs who've kidnapped Kristy Swanson (By the way, Diana Palmer's awesomeness dwarfs pretty much EVERY incarnation of Lois Lane except maybe Amy Adams in Man of Steel), bumps into a woman by mistake, stops to pick up her purse like a gentleman and goes on to leap from car to car in traffic, steal a cop's horse, riding off in hot pursuit....LIKE A FUCKING BOSS.

Moral of the Story: The thing that should really translate well here for Current Hollywood is that every hero doesn't have to be edgy and dark. Granted, Ghost Rider really should be which is why that failed, but there's no reason modern day swashbucklers can't be fun.

The Rocketeer: For a movie that doesn't really get the credit it's due, maintaining a 63% rating on Rotten Tomatoes isn't exactly anything to sneeze at. Unfortunately, it suffered from the same societal epidemics as The Phantom where a). if a movie didn't open and sellout in every theater worldwide like Dark Knight or The Avengers recently, it's automatically dismissed as a failure (keep in mind that several failures have done very well in the box office in the same way as when you go home with the guy at the bar who seems to mean well only to wake up once you're sober and say "What the fuck was I thinking?"....I'm looking at you, Transformers 2 & 3) and b). was portraying a sort of bare bones "everyman" hero in the era of Batman.

In many ways, this was a movie that Hollywood, in fact, may just have learned something from for better or worse. I mean, honestly, Rocketeer was the epitome of a period-piece hero epic. A douchebag test pilot finds Howard Hughes experimental jet pack, battles "G-men", the mob, and Nazis all for the love of Jennifer Connelly's boobs? That pretty much sums up American propaganda heroes of the 1930's. For all intents and purposes, this was something of a blueprint that would later make the way for asshole superheroes like Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man. One of the big highlights from this movie that deserves consideration (aside from a delightfully fun Timothy Dalton villain) is the dialed back usage of special effects. Don't get me wrong; it's not like they tied Bill Campbell to a big rope the whole time and told him to holler in front of a house fan the whole time, but Peter Travers had it right when he referred to it's movie magic as "the kind that charms us, rather than bullying us, into suspending disbelief."

Moral of the Story: On one hand, when you have movies about gods with magic hammers, giant green beasts, asshole space cops with magic wishing rings and....well, Superman...it's hard for visuals NOT to be a contributing factor to their success. On the other hand, special effects don't have to subtract from the story's personality. Joss Whedon understands this pretty well. So does Rocketeer director Joe Johnston which is probably why Marvel ended up tapping him to direct Captain America, which, in addition to being a pretty damn good origin story, ended up being a terrific send up of old Republic serials.

The Obligatory Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Review

It was only a matter of time before Marvel (and really, Disney) got the bright idea to do spin off television shows in the same way comics do "tie in" series. As a comic nerd, that's really the most logical metaphor I can think of to describe Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., the long awaited primetime series spawned out the success of the Avengers movie. What Marvel is doing with this show, whether is turns out good or bad, is an important experiment in the potential of their "cinematic universe" crossing over into live action tv. The result isn't a failure by any means, but it's also not a resounding success. To its credit, the show fully embraces its silliness in a fun way similar to that of the Captain America movies from the 70s.

The pilot begins some time after the Battle of New York from the Avengers movie where Earth's Mightiest Heroes successfully repel an alien invasion, making the existence of superheroes known to a once oblivious public. Agent Phil Coulson is back from the dead (somehow) to put together an A squad that can monitor the general populace for superheroes or supervillain situations and deal with them before fast and quiet. Presumably, these will be threats that don't require the attention of Captain America and Thor since they'll need to rest up to fight genocidal robots and alien despots (other than One Direction). Recruited for the task is a pilot (Ming-Na Wen) who swears she doesn't do field work, an Archer-like field agent who allegedly doesn't work well with others despite being immensely charming and a hacker who is basically what happens when Anna Kendrick joins Anonymous. The team doesn't start off seeming like the "best of the best" but perhaps, they're not supposed to. Despite witty banter and fun introductions, the pilot doesn't do the best job of making that clear right away. And don't spend too much time worrying about how or why Phil Coulson is alive. He does a pretty good job carrying the show, so you'll be happy to see him.

In many ways, it seems like the general idea is for this to be Law and Order for superheroes like Fringe was for science fiction. Considering the sandbox the series potentially plays in, it feels like relatively small potatoes. I mean, in a universe with million (and sometimes billion) dollar budgets, a project like this that has primetime drama dollars to work with obviously isn't going to seem terribly state of the art. The show makes no effort to pretend that it is, either. However, this doesn't necessarily work completely against Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as we see in a scene where Whedon-verse alumnus J. August Richards, playing a disenfranchised factory worker given superpowers, goes into a monologue contemplating where the everyday man fits in a world now populated by titans and super soldiers fighting for the fate of civilization. And here we have an aspect of the genre that could stand some highlighting.

Superhero tv/movies haven't done as much to capture the heroic age from a ground level perspective. In fact, the majority don't treat average joes as little more than collateral damage much like in a video game (although you're justified, I'm looking at YOU, Man of Steel). After all, the thought of the ubermensche looking out for us a really nice thought, but what long term ramifications would superpowered battle, vaporized buildings and alien invasions every week have on a populace after a while? Is this really that hard to imagine at a time of frequent mass shootings in a war weary country such as America? I mean, most people have enough trouble avoiding rush hour traffic, much less gods airing out their sibling rivalry in the middle of the goddamned street. This is an interesting theme that deserves further exploration in a venue such as this and Whedon would certainly be perfect to do so. However, this could also be a lofty goal for a show like this that's meant to be fun and ham-fisted. At this point, it's hard to say whether Whedon will be able to stay as involved with a show like this at a juncture in his career when he's become a nerd messiah, but the pilot was decent enough that it's worth sticking with a while longer.

Bottom Line: Not the hype worthy start some were expecting, but definitely enough strong groundwork to build off of. Oh, and...you know...Phil Coulson. 7.5 out of 10

Women and Comics: Why Not Wonder Woman?

So, now that DC Comics have finally gotten their heads in the game to actually compete with Marvel's movie universe, the comic movie gods are blessing us with a long awaited team-up between Batman and Superman in Man of Steel 2: The Steel Strikes Back. Soon after, there's supposed to be a Flash movie (I called that, by the way). But what of Wonder Woman? The quest to put the amazon on a small or silver screen seems to be a neverending battle unto itself. But why? This is a character that has survived the constant evolution of comics for just as long as Batman or Superman, who have both had more television/movie properties than I care to list here. She's had a red carpet list of writers lending their talents over the years ranging from George Perez to Jodi Picoult. What's so difficult about getting translating a story like this one to live action? Torontoist writer, Christopher Bird, hypothsizes that the problem lies with that fact that there simply hasn't been a definitive Wonder Woman from which to derive a blueprint. And that's actually sort of true. Most casual fans of Spider Man can at least name a supporting cast member (Mary Jane Watson), a villain (most likely the Green Goblin) and a definitive moment that proves to shape the character (probably Uncle Ben's death). Take a minute and do the same for Wonder Woman. I'll wait....

And in this, we find the "Wonder Woman Problem." Ask ten people to name three defining things about her and they MIGHT be able to think of "amazon", "lasso" and maybe "Lynda Carter." Fortunately, the recent revelation that DC is beginning to craft its own cinematic universe lends a little more hope towards Diana finally getting a turn at the spotlight. This is exactly what the character needs because a good movie would be more likely to give us a definitive version that the mainstream (nerds and non nerds alike) can latch onto for the forseeable future like Christopher Reeve did for Superman (I mean, lets face it....). However, there are a few things any writer/director should be aware of going into a Wonder Woman project.

1). This is going to certainly come into direct competition with Marvel, who just had the Hulk and a god help repel an alien invasion and save humanity. Granted, she has come a long way from being...let's face it...William Marston's homemade "spank bank" material. However,Wonder Woman has been a reincarnated over the years as the female version of Shazam, a kung fu master, a foreign dignitary from Amazon Island, a clay statue brought to life and a demigod. No two versions of her are ever the same. Although comic readers (especially DC readers) have come to see this as just par for the course with some characters, casual moviegoers will definitely find themselves confounded looking up information on WW when/if a movie ever gets announced. If it were me, I'd go with her being the super strong daughter of Zeus similar to (I believe) Brian Azzarello's run. Perhaps, she steals her armor and bracelets and runs away to "Man's World"....which would likely equate to New York...with the belief that the mortals are worth saving. Combine that with the mythological sword/shield element and you basically have the Justice League's Thor, a slightly headstrong yet noble soul trying to defend a modern society she doesn't quite understand.

2). The villain will make or break the movie. The sad fact is that Wonder Woman doesn't have the most diverse, notorious or even compelling list of villains. I'm sorry but Angle Man? Blue Snowman? Doctor Psycho? Can you even say any of these names with a straight face? I can't. And if I can't, I know for certain the non-nerds can't.

My pick for a quality villain would definitely be Ares, the god of war. Think about this: a super strong deity who has complete mastery of any weapon he puts his hands on, can influence people to be violently malicious assholes (as if we need much of a push....I mean, just look at 4Chan), and the ability to raise the dead. How awesome would a super powered street fight be between Diana and this guy? Meanwhile, Steve Trevor would be fighting undead Amazon warriors, cracking "Diana, can you hurry up before we all fucking die" running commentary.


3). For fuck's sake, put some pants on her. It's probably one of the best ideas NBC ever had (except for the stars along the seams). For one thing, there is just no way star spangled britches look good on ANYONE in real life. I imagine this is why Marvel seems to be leaning more towards a more functional style of uniform for Captain America. It's also pretty common sense for a superhero who, no matter what incarnation you use, is usually characterized as a badass fighter. Going into hand to hand combat as often as she does without armor on your legs doesn't seem tactically sound. I mean, sure, if you believe the 300 version, the Spartans did it all the time and they were also badass sword/shield fighters....but they died. And they didn't even have to fight people with guns.

Remember when this shit tried to happen?

As a viable tv/film property, Wonder Woman IS possible, but, creatively, it has to be taken as seriously as the Batman franchise or (arguably) Superman. Although there could very well be a degree of sexism involved in studios and, ultimately, DC dragging their feet to realize this, it's a dismissive, self fufilling prophecy to say that it's not possible because "nobody wants to see a movie about a feminist superhero." Feminist narrative don't necessarily equate to bra burnings and soapbox lectures about women's rights. Despite her share of sex and mushy stuff, Buffy was, more or less, Joss Whedon's epic feminist superhero legend. Alien's Ellen Ripley is a study in feminist narrative if ever there was one. Katniss Everdeen, despite being the central character in a teen drama that is basically The Running Man With Feelings, is a popular "strong female lead." So, the only real question anyone should be asking is "Why not Wonder Woman?"

Crowd Participation or Happy Free Comic Book Day

Craig "BBC" Long from Houston, TX wanted to hear my thoughts after reading the Walking Dead comics since I saw Seasons 1 and 2 first.

Well, Craig, I can say that the comic delivers better than I could have hoped. With the direction Swamp Thing and I Vampire went in, The Walking Dead is definitely one of the ONLY mainstream titles in comics that can truly lay claim to being a horror comic. One thing that is well preserved in its own way is the dichotomy of Rick and Shane. Not only do they define each other, they define the theme of the series as a whole. In the moments when it's not an epic zombie saga (easily one of the best of all time), it's essentially a morality play that constantly questions whether or not humanity is a biological or ideological state of being. Rick and Shane seem to be constantly at odds with themselves as well as each other standing on respective sides of the argument. I see where some fans take issue with the things altered in the the tv adaptation, but I think it's the aesthetically reasonable compromise network television could probably muster. No matter how iconic a comic is or how powerful a panel is, the sad truth is that there are just some things that look good in a comic that won't translate as well on television or on screen. That's why I like that geeks are actually being consulted about geek culture. Robert Kirkman works very closely alongside the production team on Walking Dead, George R. R. Martin is reportedly consulted often on the direction of Game of Thrones and Joss Whedon has more than enough nerd credit in the bank at this point to be trusted with The Avengers. At some point Hollywood decided that instead of being satisfied with the receipt for the intellectual property they bought as a stamp of approval, it might be better to actually ask the creator what they think about their work. I stand behind the "for nerds, by nerds" approach.

Johnathan Marroquin writes via Facebook: I need an honest opinion on the Amalgam universe circa 96-98. Potential or not?

For those of you who have no idea what he's talking about, in the late 90s, DC and Marvel were real fiends for cross pollinating their titles because...let's face it...nerds will never stop arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk ("...and then Superman threw the big green monkey into the sun and went back to work. The End."). So, they finally had a Marvel vs. DC miniseries where the best...at the time...of each company had a big slugfest because of some patchwork excuse like "the universes are colliding" (a writer's way of saying "for no good goddamned reason"). Anyway, somehow after the heroes kept the universes from colliding by beating the shit out of each other, the universes collided anyway. The result was a universe full of mashup characters. Sometimes, they made sense like how the "Challengers of the Fantastic" was a combination of the Fantastic Four and the Challengers of the Unknown....both Jack Kirby creations. Most of them, however, were shitty like putting Batman and Man-Thing together to get Bat-Thing. This was indicative of what the mid to late 90s was in the land of comics: a reason to sell cool covers instead of cool books. Assuming Johnathan's question is asking whether or not this same imprint would be a viable venture now, it's enough that DC treats their own artists like the mail room interns you steal ideas from without their knowing. It's enough that Marvel would hold their writers at gunpoint beneath a vat of battery acid and force them to write a "You Got Served" comic if they thought there was money in it. I shudder to think what the Big Two would do to each other.

Batman: No, Logan, I never would have guessed it was you under there.