Filed under Fandom …

Oct 30 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

Disney buys Star Wars, announces Episode VII for 2015

Disney has acquired the rights to the Star Wars franchise and announced Star Wars: Episode VII for 2015. And I am not making anything in that previous sentence up.

I need you to understand the force of will involved here in my not using capslock. I woke up from a nap, checked Twitter, and nearly the first thing I saw was that one of the most consistently smart studios has acquired the rights to the most important franchise in my lifetime and is producing sequels. A few years ago this would’ve pissed me off, but then the Avengers franchise happened. It’s pretty amazing how much that franchise has made it possible for me to be optimistic about the film industry, but seriously, we are talking about a studio who, the last time they were producing a “the world will end if this film sucks” turned to Joss Whedon and handed him a blank check.

There is absolutely no way for me to be rational about this, so I should probably stop talking now.

Tagged , ,
Jul 24 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #14: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

Apologies for the extremely late hour of this update, I was away from the internet pretty much all day thanks to a trip to Boston. But now, the exciting continuation of my countdown of favorite superhero films!

~-~-~

#14: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a curious case inasmuch as the version of the franchise with which fans are most familiar not only isn’t the original, but doesn’t even resemble it very much. The franchise’s first iteration was actually as a satirical self-published comic book series by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird under the banner of “Mirage Studios” starting in 1984.

Despite its comedic origins, the tone of the comics is much darker than what you probably think of when you think of the Ninja Turtles. It included such plot points as Leonardo being beaten to within an inch of his life and having his confidence shattered in the aftermath. Oh, yeah, and do you want to know how the turtles dealt with Shredder? They killed him. They didn’t stop his evil plan, rescue April, and rush off after a quick parting-shot joke ready to meet again in the next episode. They straight-up killed him and burned his body.

Not sounding like the turtles you know and love? That’s probably because the version you’re most familiar with his the 1987 animated series and the commercial empire of video games, action figures, and (much more light-hearted) tie-in comic books it spawned. Though conceived as children’s entertainment, this has become the “definitive” interpretation of the Ninja Turtles. This is when the turtles got their own individual bandanna colors (originally, they were all red), April O’Neil became a journalist (originally, she was a former lab assistant to a mad scientist), the turtles became obsessed with pizza, and the turtles (especially Michelangelo) started using surfer slang, all of which are now considered staples of the franchise to the point of being indispensable.

When it came time to adapt the franchise into a film, the filmmakers made the wise decision to actually combine the two takes on the franchise to great effect. The overall atmosphere of the film might have been lifted directly out of the Mirage Studios comics. The characterization of Shredder was (thankfully) the more serious version we saw in the comics, as I really don’t think the animated version would have been a remotely effective villain here. On the other hand, the turtles themselves drew heavily on the animated series’ characterizations (while adjusting them slightly for the more serious context), and it was largely through them that the film managed to combine the seriousness of the original comics with the fun of the animated series.

This really is the definitive Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film. While I generally preferred the adventurous tone and computer-animation of the 2007 version, the plot there was nowhere near as deep. I will say in the computer-animated film’s defense that I liked the potential for further adventures of that tone much, much better. Still, the live-action film got so many things so very right, it’s impossible not to be impressed.

Tagged , , , ,
Jul 22 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #15: Thor (2011)

Alright, having now seen The Dark Knight Rises my self-imposed social media blackout is over! A review of that film will be somewhat forthcoming (I may need to see the film again first), but in the meantime here’s the next entry in our exciting series of my favorite superhero films!

~-~-~

#15: Thor (2011)

Out of all the origin films building the Marvel Cinematic Universe in anticipation of The Avengers, Thor is actually probably the one I was looking forward to the least. I didn’t know much about the character, and what I did know seemed badly out of place in the ultra-realistic universe of modern superhero films. (What I didn’t know at the time, of course, was that Marvel was throwing that fad out the window without the slightest hint of remorse.) So you can imagine my surprise when it turned out to be my favorite Marvel origin film since we found out they were indeed Marvel origin films. (Remember: we didn’t go into Iron Man knowing that it was an origin film. There were rumors, but the Nick Fury post-credits scene was the franchise’s big coming out party, and even then it wasn’t until a few weeks later that The Avengers was officially confirmed.)

I would not have been as surprised at how much I enjoyed the film had I read up on its highly-decorated creative team ahead of time. The film was helmed by the legendary Kenneth Branagh who is mostly known for the critically-acclaimed adaptations of William Shakespeare plays he has either directed or starred in (or both.) I’m amazed at how perfect Marvel continues to be at picking the right person for the job in film after film. Large segments of this film’s plot have been affectionately described as “Shakespeare in space,” which makes Branagh pretty transparently the right person, but moreover the challenges involved in bringing Thor to the big screen were nearly identical to the challenges involved in doing the same with Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s plays have such towering figures and dramatic scope that it’s easy for the human element (which is actually such a vital part of their appeal) to get lost in the noise. And the language of Elizabethan drama creates characters nearly as alien to modern audiences as, say, a god from outer space. A great actor or director in this sort of role must be able to see the human element, to understand the character’s emotional connection to the story and the people around them. It’s exactly what Branagh has shown himself to be a master of, and it’s exactly what this film needed to convincingly depict a god that had fallen to earth and started to form relationships with humans.

Branagh at director is not the only brilliant behind-the-scenes choice Marvel made for this film. J. Michael Straczynski (creator/writer/showrunner of the sprawling scifi epic television series Babylon 5, writer of The Amazing Spider-Man from 2001 to 2007, and a man who literally wrote the book on script-writing) was brought aboard to co-write the film’s story with Mark Protosevich. The script was written by longtime collaborators Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz (Andromeda, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and more recently adding to their comic book film credentials with X-Men: First Class) along with a third co-writer, Don Payne.

Finally, the casting was brilliant from top to bottom. Chris Hemsworth, though a relative unknown at the time, fit the role of Thor perfectly (and didn’t stay unknown for long after a huge year this year between Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers.) Tom Hiddleston was a revelation as Loki, and his chemistry with Hemsworth was spectacular both here and in The Avengers. Loki is a believable and compelling villain in both films. His resentment for his brother and discovery that he was actually a Frost Giant child adopted by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) give him a believable motivation, while seeing his sibling’s descent into villainy creates internal conflict in Thor and gives their battles additional emotional subtext. And having Anthony Hopkins in what was clearly a supporting role was just an absolute coup if I’ve ever seen one.

I am not unsympathetic to the complaint that Natalie Portman (as Jane Foster) was underused in this film, but I think she did great with what she was given to work with, and her interactions with the exiled and depowered Thor really served to humanize the character. The characters who really seemed at the mercy of their role as plot devices were Thor’s friends and fellow warriors, the Warriors Three (whose group name I don’t recall being spoken aloud in the film, and certainly it wasn’t made a very big deal of if it was): Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano), and Fandral (Joshua Dallas), as well as Thor’s childhood friend Sif (Jaimie Alexander.) I honestly had to look all of those up, because I had no idea what their names were.

The inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D. once again helped tie this film in with the other origin films (and would later help tie all of those films in with The Avengers.) It’s both a shrewdly efficient bit of world-building, and yet another opportunity to see the inestimable Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) in action.

What really impressed me about Thor was how it succeeded both on the epic level and the human level. Given that Loki was going to be the villain in The Avengers and that Asgard is definitely the farthest removed of all of the worlds that needed to be tied together, Thor had a lot of heavy lifting to do. It would’ve been easy for this film to become bogged down by all the world-building it needed to do, but instead it weaved that world-building in seamlessly with a great story. Thor is shown battling giants and saving the earth, but he’s also explored on a deeply human level, especially when he’s bereft of his powers. He is consistently likable, but definitely not without flaws, which he must overcome in order to be worthy again of wielding his hammer and the great power it represents.

The film’s portrayal of the clash between human and Asgardian culture yields humorous moments (like the restaurant scene you’ve probably seen in every trailer), but it also leads to more meaningful moments (like Thor’s line, “Your ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one in the same”). Thor himself is characterized by a sort of dramatic earnestness that would be impossible to pull off if he weren’t literally from another world. After this film, it was pretty easy to see how Thor was going to “fit in” with the Avengers. Joss Whedon was given plenty to work with.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jul 19 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #16: X-Men: First Class (2011)

Over the next few weeks I will be counting down my favorite (and least favorite) superhero films. For the purpose of this list, the only “rules” for what constitutes a superhero film will be that it reasonably seems like a superhero film. I won’t be applying any ridiculous standards that end up making Batman not a superhero because he has no super powers, or anything like that.

For those of you thinking, “Wait, 23? Isn’t that kind of a lot?” Keep in mind, the past few years alone have seen Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, Bryan Singer’s X-Men films, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, and the unprecedented Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading!

~-~-~

#16. X-Men: First Class (2011)

It is with a certain amount of dismay that I’ve actually seen this film become overrated.

I loved X-Men: First Class for what it represented for the X-Men film franchise: a radical snap back toward the tone the series had established when it was helmed by Bryan Singer. This was likely largely owing to behind-the-scenes factors like Singer’s presence as producer and story-writer, and the selection of self-professed X-Men fan Matthew Vaughn to direct. Vaughn had initially been selected to direct X-Men 3, and was very critical of the product Brett Ratner ended up putting on the screen (which was definitely a good sign.) Another huge factor in this improvement was likely the focus on the relationship between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender.)

So yeah, I liked the direction this film took the franchise. It was a huge step back in the right direction. The problem is, I’ve seen a lot of people suggest that this film was actually superior to Bryan Singer’s first two X-Men films. I can’t really get into too many specifics in advance of my reviews of those two films, but most of what made First Class good was how it emulated Singer’s previous entries in the series, and it had quite a few flaws that those films didn’t.

I’m not going to get into specifics that I’ve discussed elsewhere, but this film makes an enormous mess of the continuity of the X-Men films. The easy defense here is that this is a reboot… the problem being that it isn’t. And anyone who wants to make the argument that “that’s just Matthew Vaughn’s take” (since he was only, you know, the director) should probably know that an X-Men Origins: Wolverine sequel is forthcoming. Really, they seemed to be in a pretty huge hurry to get Erik into Magneto’s cape and helmet, which sacrifices a lot of the implied backstory of the original X-Men film series, and the depth and history implied in Charles and Erik’s relationship, which had been a huge strength of the series.

Continuity issues were not this film’s only problem. The secondary villains were developed quite poorly, the most egregious example being the fact that I had to look up Riptide (Alex Gonzalez) to make sure that’s who he actually was, since his name was never spoken aloud in the film and he really wasn’t memorable in any way aside from constantly being beaten up.

“Now wait a second,” you might protest, “this film had a lot to accomplish in limited screen time, including introducing all of the main characters and developing them. It didn’t have time for memorable henchmen.” Oh. You mean it faced exactly the same challenges as Bryan Singer’s first X-Men (2000)? A film whose villainous henchmen (Sabretooth, Mystique, and Toad) were all extremely memorable despite fairly limited screen time?

Speaking of henchmen, Emma Frost is not a henchman. This is quite possibly this film’s most unforgivable sin: including perhaps the most interesting X-Men character of all time and all but completely ruining her. Emma Frost is a badass with questionable morals both as a hero and a villain, but she isn’t a woman you hand a glass and tell to get you some ice. The character was written pretty poorly to begin with, but on top of that January Jones was not an inspired choice to play the role. She seemed harmless, which is the last thing that Emma Frost should ever seem.

These problems weren’t just limited to the villains. Angel Salvadore (Zoe Kravitz) seems to be introduced mainly so we can get a scene with Charles and Erik recruiting someone from a strip club. She actually manages to make a turn from hero to villain without really saying or doing anything of any consequence. (Really.) And Darwin (Edi Gathegi) mainly seems to be introduced to give the film a random black character to kill off (the dangerous film cliché there really rubbed me the wrong way.)

All of that being said, there was an equal amount that made this film great. As already mentioned, the film took this franchise back in the right direction by focusing on Charles and Erik’s complicated relationship and taking on the tone and pacing of the first two films. Aiding this were strong performances by McAvoy and Fassbender, both as individuals and because of their excellent chemistry with each other.

McAvoy plays a younger and somewhat smug Xavier; you can clearly see how he’ll “grow into” the role he’ll occupy later in the series, when his undeniable charm will be tempered by wisdom and become the charisma of leadership. Fassbender’s Magneto has an incredible intensity and single-mindedness which actually won’t change all that much as the character evolves. Both had unenviable tasks having to follow the likes of Sirs Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, but managed to rise to the occasion.

Kevin Bacon was a surprisingly spectacular choice as the film’s primary antagonist, Sebastian Shaw. His performance absolutely struck the right chord for a comic book villain. He believably played an arrogant, megalomaniacal genius, and he was damn entertaining in the process.

Out of all the secondary protagonists, I think Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Beast (Nicholas Hoult) were pretty easily my favorite. I’m still not entirely sure I like what Charles and Mystique’s relationship does to the subtext of the future films (they don’t acknowledge each other at all in X2, which seems pretty odd if they had that close of a relationship in First Class), but Mystique’s struggle to be herself is one of the most thoughtful notes the film strikes. The way that internal conflict comes into play with her budding friendship with Beast is one of the more interesting subplots of the film. As is the beginning of her relationship with Magneto, which this film actually did a pretty spectacular job with (and managed to sneak in one of its two hilariously awesome cameos.)

All in all, the positives far outweighed the negatives in X-Men: First Class. It isn’t quite on par with X-Men or X2, but it still represents a return to form for the series that started the 21st century’s explosion of high-quality comic book films.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 18 2012
2 Comments
Fandom, Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #17: Transformers (2007)

Over the next few weeks I will be counting down my favorite (and least favorite) superhero films. For the purpose of this list, the only “rules” for what constitutes a superhero film will be that it reasonably seems like a superhero film. I won’t be applying any ridiculous standards that end up making Batman not a superhero because he has no super powers, or anything like that.

For those of you thinking, “Wait, 23? Isn’t that kind of a lot?” Keep in mind, the past few years alone have seen Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, Bryan Singer’s X-Men films, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, and the unprecedented Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading!

~-~-~

#17: Transformers (2007)

First of all, let’s get this out of the way: yes, this film’s status as a “superhero film” is subject to considerable debate. There are a lot of reasonably good arguments on both sides, but (in my opinion) no true “home run” arguments one way or the other. I decided to include the Transformers as superheroes because they have a lot of attributes in common with most superheroes. I have no problem if anyone strongly disagrees with this assessment, but it’s what I’m going with.

I’m really wondering where all of these people I’ve met recently who “always hated” Transformers were in 2007. I can’t help but be reminded of all the people who suddenly were “always” against the Iraq War, which is perhaps a bit overly on-the-nose given this film’s opening setting in the Middle East and penchant for glorifying militarism. The point is, I didn’t know anyone in 2007 who hated this film. I wasn’t especially excited to go see it until everyone I knew wouldn’t shut up about how good it was. A good friend whose taste I can always rely on referred to it as “Nerd Porn.” (I would later agree, with the slightly modified term of “nerdgasm.”) Everyone from hardcore fans of the Transformers franchise to people like me who had almost no experience with the franchise came away from this film with a nearly universal message: it rocked.

Transformers took the nerd world by storm. In retrospect, we might observe that a large part of this might have more to do with the film’s marketability than anything deeper, but at the time it was just a fantastically fun film with a great deal of promise for sequels (oh, those were the days…)

Usually the fact that the first film of a series has to spend a great deal of time introducing characters, concepts, and the world at large is seen as an obstacle, sometimes even a source of great frustration that prevents the filmmaker from really doing what she or he wants to do with the film. In the case of Transformers, however, I actually think it helped hide many of its flaws, which would become glaringly obvious in the sequels.

We all know the biggest problem with Bay’s Transformers series. These are films that look at women the same way pre-Danica Patrick NASCAR did: they look great in tight or revealing clothing splayed across a fast car, but they shouldn’t talk too much. It wasn’t as pronounced in the first film as it would be in the other two films. Why? Because Bay needed to introduce his main characters, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox), and their budding romance. From that point on, the two were on screen together almost constantly, they both had an almost equal amount “to do”: almost nothing. They ran around from plot point to plot point being protected by giant robots. (Incidentally, if you have to have human characters have a central role in a Transformers film, that’s probably what they should spend all their time doing.) It wasn’t until the sequels needed to give both characters something to do that Bay’s sensibilities became obvious. That, and when you’re doing “first movie” world-building, you don’t have time for Sam to go to a “party” that looks like a combination between a strip club and a supermarket. (“Yeah, I’ll take that one. No, the blonde to her left, with the leather skirt.”)

But I’m getting ahead of myself. We’ll talk about that (trust me: we will) when we get to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on (spoiler alert) the other list.

Although this film’s status as the opening act of a (poorly-conceived) trilogy helped conceal larger problems that would become endemic to the franchise, there was one pretty clear warning sign: the character of Maggie Madsen (Rachael Taylor.) I honestly had to look that up. To be fair, she was actually in the film for multiple reasons: 1) To explain how the Decepticons hacked our files (which didn’t actually need to be explained, but that’s okay), 2) Michael Bay didn’t think Megan Fox’s boobs were quite big enough, 3) Bay wanted a blonde around (diversity!), 4) … okay, I guess that’s about it.

Yeah, the problem is this character makes no sense. She’s introduced when the Secretary of Defense introduces a huge group of high school (high school) computer science wizzes who have apparently been recruited because we don’t have better computer experts at the National Security Agency??? (Or, you know, any with a college degree?) Oh, yeah, she’s also Australian. This character was my biggest (and, for the most part, only) problem with the first film, but I should’ve taken her as the flashing “Trouble Ahead!” neon sign she was. But (silly me), I was under the impression that Bay’s audiences would point this out and it would be largely corrected in the sequel. Instead, basically everything about the sequel was this dumb. But, again, more on that later.

To see how this film’s “firstquel” status actually benefitted it, consider the sources of its appeal. The Autobots’ arrival on earth was awe-inspiring, and easily one of the best scenes of the series. This is where having a “human-eye” view of the Transformers really spectacularly paid off. Having the first film be about two puny humans and how they’re protected by giant robots while running from other giant robots and how surprisingly sexy (No? Just me?) that is? I’m find with that. It’s easiest to show Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) as a father-figure when he has not just the other Autobots, but a human we can relate to to reassure and offer his wisdom to. The entire structure of this film seems to function to show us how big and impressive the Transformers are, and it does an excellent job of that.

Although Bay will inexplicably abandon this in future installments, Sam is actually a pretty sympathetic character in the first film. You get the “geek” vibe from him pretty solidly, and things really don’t always go his way. (In fact, they usually don’t.) Mikaela initially gave me a pretty strongly negative vibe, but once Sam drags her into the larger plot of the film she effectively disappears (while giving the illusion of still being involved to negate what could’ve been another “Trouble Ahead!” sign.)

Josh Duhamel as William Lennox actually largely justified this film’s military fetish due to his character’s bravery and how believably Duhamel played it. His performance was one of the few strengths that would actually carry from this film into the sequels. Jablonsky’s score, which as already mentioned was consistently great, really reached its heights with the Autobots’ arrival on earth and the moments when the film showed dramatic acts of heroism.

Sector 7, the covert government organization tasked with investigating extraterrestrial activity, was one of the best things about the film (so, naturally, was swiftly jettisoned for the sequels.) They serve as both a plot device and one of the most genuinely interesting things about the film. John Turturro was excellent in the role of the half-comedic/half-serious Agent Simmons. And the conflict between Lennox and Simmons when they meet is one of the best little moments in the film.

The casting for supporting characters in this film was shockingly awesome. Jon Voight plays the Secretary of Defense, while The West Wing veteran Michael O’Neill is absolutely perfect for the role of Sector 7′s director. (I hope you’re sensing a theme by now when I say that neither returned for the sequels.)

This film’s simplicity is its great ally. My takeaway lesson from the Transformers franchise is that Michael Bay can absolutely do simple. Transformers basically has three beats: action, wry humor, and (very seldomly) solemn sentiment (usually from Optimus Prime, but Lennox had one moment with Sam in the film’s final act.) All of these beats are dramatically enhanced by Steve Jablonsky’s impressive score. “Oh wow, that was awesome” moments are strewn throughout this film (many of these are performed by Lennox, like his trick with the motorcycle in the film’s final battle.) Yeah, okay: this film really hit its stride when it was, essentially, robot action porn. But that’s what it was supposed to be! And that’s what the sequels should’ve been.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 17 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Least Favorite Superhero Films. #14: Batman & Robin (1997)

Parallel to my countdown of favorite superhero films (though not perfectly so as there are far fewer noteworthy in this category), I will also be counting down my least favorite superhero films. As with the other list, the only “rules” for what constitutes a superhero film will be that it reasonably seems like a superhero film. I won’t be applying any ridiculous standards that end up making Batman not a superhero because he has no super powers, or anything like that.

~-~-~

#14: Batman & Robin (1997)

I ended yesterday’s (partial) defense of Batman Forever with the comment that aside from the fact that it was kind of mediocre and had some fairly substantial problems, I think the main reason most people actually hate Batman Forever is that they conflate it with Batman & Robin, and that I think that’s a pretty serious mistake. Batman & Robin is a terrible film. Much worse than Batman Forever. Batman Forever wasn’t exactly cinematic brilliance in the first place, but Batman & Robin actually pulled off the neat trick of ruining three (three) of my favorite villains in the same film. And Batgirl. They also ruined Batgirl. Because you know, why not?

The things that make Batman & Robin so bad are actually much simpler than the things that mitigate Batman Forever‘s badness and led me to defend it. While Batman Forever has Dick Grayson’s anguish over his parents’ death, Bruce’s relating to that and taking him under his wing, the complicated development of a relationship between the two, and Bruce’s own psychological recovery going for it, Batman & Robin has… nothing.

Where Batman Forever was occasionally marred by hints of the nails-on-chalkboard awful dialogue we’d rather see throughout the entirety of Batman & Robin, they were just that: hints. Large segments of Batman Forever involved legitimately interesting character-building and relationship dynamics. Batman & Robin throws a completely superficial conflict between Batman and Robin at us that’s so forced it doesn’t make either of their characters more interesting. The closest thing this film has to “something going for it” is Robin chafing under Batman’s leadership (and one can’t help but wonder if the fact that his Robin costume is already starting to resemble Nightwing’s was hinting at something), and that wasn’t given enough attention to really count as a strongpoint.

You know what? I’m going to say it. Chris O’Donnell as Robin was the only worthwhile thing about this film. I actually really enjoyed his performance. This film could’ve been replaced by 125 minutes of Chris O’Donnell beating bad guys up and it would’ve been a much better film.

George Clooney? I… actually think he might be the worst Batman ever. That might be largely indicative of the script’s failures, but I’m not sure I could’ve bought Clooney as Batman even in a more well-constructed film. That seems like it should serve as the worst possible indictment of the film, but we haven’t even gotten close to the worst parts.

As I alluded to earlier, this film pulled off the shockingly impressive trifecta of ruining three of my favorite (and most fans’ favorite) supervillains of all time, and threw Batgirl in for good measure. To start things off, let’s look at Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. Ivy is a fan-favorite Batman villain because of her enigmatic nature, and the awkward romantic tension between her and Batman in their various incarnations. Ivy has been portrayed as a temptress, and her connection with nature made her an obvious choice to channel feminists influences into the Batman series. The ultimate depiction of this character is probably in The Animated Series, where she is depicted as subtle but incredibly deadly.

Batman & Robin‘s depiction of the character incorporates some of those elements… in the sense that a few vaguely superficial mockeries of feminist and environmentalist themes are briefly mentioned in Ivy’s psychopathic rant immediately after being transformed and never mentioned again. Oh, and that “subtlety” thing from the other versions of the character? Not so much. She basically parades around in revealing costumes and seems much more sexually available than any other version of her character. (Hey, Schumacher had to distract audiences from the homosexual overtones somehow… right?)

The funny thing is, Ivy might be the least ruined villain in this film. The other major villain of the film is Mr. Freeze. Though Freeze was always noted for having a more “serious” tone than many other Batman villains even in his early days, it was Batman: The Animated Series that gave him the tragic origin story of a fatally ill wife whom he cryogenically preserves in order to protect her until he can find a cure. This depiction was so seminal, it resulted in his comic book incarnations being altered to fit this new origin story, and the episode that introduced this new origin won the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing in an Animated Program in 1993. As a result, the character has a melancholy nature, and is moreover a seriously driven character.

Batman & Robin‘s version of the character is pretty much the worst reinterpretation anyone could’ve come up with. The utter stupidity of this film’s characterization defies all reason. Schumacher opts to keep Freeze’s tragic backstory, but depict him as a beyond-campy, pun-spouting, shallow caricature played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is virtually impossible to overstate how completely wrong this character is.

And he isn’t even the worst one. Linked to Ivy (for reasons passing understanding) throughout the film is Bane. Fans of the Batman comics will remember Bane from the Knightfall arc, during which he proved to be a physical and intellectual equal to Batman, eventually actually defeating the Dark Knight and knocking him out of commission completely for over a year. That’s not in-story time, that’s real-world time. There was a year of comic books published during which Bruce Wayne was crippled and someone else was Batman.

What many later interpretations failed to “get” about Bane, even The Animated Series, is that his awesome strength isn’t his biggest asset, it’s his incredible intellect. His plan to take down Batman is ruthlessly brilliant. Seriously, if you aren’t planning on reading Knightfall, just read this summary. It’s one of the best Batman storylines of all time. The thing is… as lacking as every attempt to reinterpret Bane into other continuities has been, Batman & Robin was unquestionably the absolute worst. Did it fail to make him an intimidating criminal mastermind? You could say that. Batman & Robin reimagines Bane as a petty criminal who becomes super-strong only because of Venom. Calling him Ivy’s henchman would be giving him too much credit: he’s her slave. And for most of the film, he seems incapable of speech.

Ill-content to merely ruin the film’s villains, Schumacher next turned his attention to Barbara Gordon… no, wait, I’m sorry, we’re calling her “Barbara Wilson” here. Because, for no apparent reason, Barbara is now Alfred Pennyworth’s niece. She’s played (badly; you had to see that coming by now, right?) by Alicia Silverstone. She rides motorcycles (so she can identify with Robin and get in a really stupid motorcycle race that’s one of the film’s worst scenes) and is said to be a computer expert (so the film can allude to her comic exploits as the Oracle without doing any actual work.) Everything she ever does with or says about computers in the film makes absolutely no sense, and would make someone with an even rudimentary understanding of computers feel vaguely violent. The hints of romantic tension between her and Dick Grayson in this version come off as more than a little creepy since Alfred basically functions as Dick’s uncle.

Oh, yeah, speaking of her relationship with Alfred, here’s the best part: Alfred created a costume and gear for her and wrote a program in the Batcomputer just in case she ever needed to become Batgirl for no apparent reason, without Bruce knowing. You know. Bruce. Bruce Wayne. Batman. The incredibly paranoid guy who takes down criminal geniuses for a living. (Wait, no, I forgot: there aren’t any criminal geniuses in this version. My bad.)

Now… you could probably take all of these horribly, horribly butchered characters and actually write a pretty interesting movie about them, but as I already said, that didn’t happen. Dick Grayson’s introduction in Batman Forever is duplicated almost beat-for-beat in Barbara’s introduction, only without the orphaning and with a great deal more awkwardness and terrible acting. The “point” of the film seems to have been to introduce the “Batman Family,” but you can get a better introduction of that concept literally almost anywhere the concept has been depicted.

So, the obvious question. Why isn’t this higher on my list of least favorite superhero films of all time? Well, here’s where you’re going to want to throw stones at me again: I… actually kind of enjoy it. I’m not saying I enjoyed it when I was a kid, when I was supposed to enjoy it and didn’t know any better (although that also is true). I… actually still enjoy it to this day. Chris O’Donnell’s performance as Robin (probably aided by the fact that I have a serious crush on the character) remains compelling to me for some reason, and no matter how bad this film is, and no matter how thoroughly it butchered the characters and stories it ripped off… I can totally watch it as a guilty pleasure, which I can’t say about a lot of other films on this list.

You know what? Screw it. Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Joel Schumacher is hardly the first person to look at Batman and go, “You know… that’s kinda gay.” He’s just the first one to make a lot of money off of it, and I kind of actually love him for that. I hate what he did to a lot of my favorite characters in the process, but I just can’t direct the kind of venom (no pun intended) at this film that others can. It’s bad. It’s awful. I acknowledge that it might very well be the worst superhero film of all time… but I can’t hate it as much as I’m supposed to.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 16 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

Two Dark Knight Rises reviews as a case study, and my general thoughts on Nolan’s Batman films

This is pretty well-timed given that I’m in the middle of my two-day discussion of Joel Schumacher’s Batman films, and have already alluded (to some extent) to how I feel about Chris Nolan’s. Reviews of the highly-anticipated (understatement of the decade?) The Dark Knight Rises have begun to flood the internet and traditional media sources. I’ve read quite a few of them, and two in particular jumped out at me right away for profoundly different reasons.

I realized that the contrast between these two reviews is so poignant, it lets me talk about something that doesn’t get much attention: what makes a “good” review and a “bad” review. Now, I’m not referring to good and bad in the sense of how the reviews see the film, and this distinction is aided by the fact that these are both actually positive reviews; instead, I am referring to the quality of review-writing on display.

The first review I’d like to discuss is TIME Magazine‘s review of the film, written by Richard Corliss. (Warning: as I am about to discuss, do NOT read this review if you don’t want spoilers!!) The review starts out with this rather understated warning: “Warning: Mild spoilers throughout–though the film has enough big surprises that you need not worry.” That’s thoughtful, TIME, but they aren’t “minor” spoilers, and a warning isn’t what’s necessary here; these plot details are under embargo. Do you know what “embargo” means? It means this review should’ve been seriously rewritten, or not published at all.

I am honestly astonished by the fact that such a major publication would publish such a sloppily-written review. Corliss seems to be under the impression that it’s a good idea to spend most of the “review” summarizing the plot of the (unreleased!) film, while occasionally tossing in uncritical superlatives.

Don’t get me wrong, I find it very credible that The Dark Knight Rises is “a film of grand ambitions and epic achievement” (I think “maybe the best, most troubling, assured and enthralling of all the superhero movies” might be a bit over-the-top, though I haven’t seen the film yet), but it would’ve been nice to see the reviewer give any supporting evidence of that instead of lengthy plot summary.

Since we’re making unsubstantiated claims anyway, this article’s post-title preview text claims that “puny” Avengers must “make way” for Nolan’s “grand tale.” The article then proceeds to mention The Avengers exactly one time, and that is to concede that The Dark Knight Rises might not be able to touch its box office take, but that The Dark Knight Rises is the superior film–again, without any supporting evidence or even argument. If you’re going to make that kind of sensationalist claim, you might want to back it up. Just a suggestion.

I don’t think there’s any way I can possibly overstate how bad this review is. Despite the fact that it is an almost-orgasmically positive review, if I were Christopher Nolan, I would seriously contemplate telling all of my friends in the industry not to credential TIME at my critic screenings. It’s really that egregious.

On the flip side, we have Drew McWeeny’s review for the entertainment website HitFix (minor, and I mean minor spoilers within.) Despite being for a less prestigious publication, McWeeny’s review is superior in every imaginable way.

McWeeny’s review passes the most basic litmus test you can give any review: the majority of the text here is his own interpretative and evaluative arguments, supplemented by evidence from the film itself. And that evidence does not consist of summarizing the entire plot of the film. He discusses particular elements of the film that relate to his argument, but considering anything he says a spoiler would require a very liberal application of the word.

Ironically, it is the mostly spoiler-free review that answers much more of my questions about he film. How was Anne Hathaway as Catwoman? (An actual description of her performance, not the one-sentence throwaway we get in the TIME review.) How does this film relate to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? And, not to belabor this point, but where the TIME review is uncritically positive, this review, though also positive, actually backs up every evaluation it makes.

Since we’re here anyway, it seems like a good time to talk about my “take” on Chris Nolan’s Batman films, with the obvious caveat that I have not yet seen his conclusion. Although much of what I’m about to say may already be pretty obvious from context in the two reviews I’m posting today and tomorrow, I don’t see any harm in discussing it here explicitly.

Earlier today I discussed Movie Bob’s point that Batman Forever has Bruce Wayne make a psychological breakthrough and yet choose to continue being Batman, the sort of character development that Christopher Nolan’s Batman films do not seem capable of supporting. Essentially, Bruce is actually able to move on from his parents’ death but continue to function as Batman despite becoming more psychologically healthy. While some might see this as a repudiation of Bruce’s central motivation, it is hardly unprecedented. In the comics and many of the animated incarnations, Bruce is not the one-note character he is often seen as by casual fans of the series, driven by inconsolable rage and constantly subject to depression that ought to be debilitating.

Consider the Knightfall arc (go ahead and read that summary if you aren’t planning on reading the comics; it’s worth it). This is one of the most famous plot arcs in the Batman comics. And if you want dark and gritty (which I assume you do if you’re a Nolan fan), this definitely has dark and gritty. We’re talking about the arc that features Bane (yeah, the same one Nolan brings to the screen in The Dark Knight Rises) as the main villain, guys. Bane, the ruthlessly evil criminal genius. Bane, the only villain who has ever proved himself to be Batman’s equal both physically and mentally. Bane, who before his confrontation with Batman breaks every single supervillain out of Arkham Asylum so that Batman will be worn down physically, mentally, and spiritually by being forced to track down each and every one of them. Bane, who after Batman finishes this grim task shows up at the Batcave, in Bruce’s most intimate of personal sanctums, and famously breaks Batman’s back. This is not a small deal. This is the storyline that knocked Batman out of commission for a year. And I’m not talking about in-story time, there was a year of comics being published where Bruce Wayne was not Batman, and someone else was filling in.

And what were the big takeaways from this plot arc? Bruce realized the perils of working alone, and that he needed to rebuild the Bat family, renewing his trust in Tim Drake (Robin) and Dick Grayson (Nightwing.) Really. That’s the big takeaway from this arc. But Bruce has a hard time doing this, as his trust in others takes a huge hit from the corruption of Jean Paul Valley (Azrael, who takes up the identity of Batman in Bruce’s absence), whom Bruce must dethrone upon his return. This is really interesting stuff, guys. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Bruce’s parents being dead.

I do not want to be misunderstood here: I like Christopher Nolan’s work. I think it’s some of the finest work that’s ever been done with this character. I’m glad Christopher Nolan’s films happened, because I think he was able to pull off a deeply meaningful exploration of the character (and some larger themes about our world that he explores through Batman’s world.) There is a very literary quality to these film, they are deep and meaningful.

Bruce Wayne is not a one-note character, and the Batman franchise is not a one-note franchise. Batman has always been a mix of light and dark. Chris Nolan’s films are excellent, and meaningful. They are also dark, and gritty. I am concerned that some people are under the (mistaken) impression that they are excellent and meaningful because they are grim and dark. There are excellent superhero films that have this tone (Nolan’s Batman films, Watchmen), and there are excellent superhero films that have a much more optimistic tone (Bryan Singer’s X-Men films, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, The Avengers and all the solo origin films leading up to it.)

What I am concerned about is this becoming the definitive interpretation of Batman, and the aim of superhero films in general. Not every superhero film should be like this. Most superhero films shouldn’t be. Marvel has been showing us for decades the formula that I really think most superhero films ought to follow. What I am concerned about is a million Chris Nolan copycats trying to make every superhero film, and especially every new interpretation of Batman, grim and dark. Let’s not forget why we like superheroes in the first place.

Jul 16 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

Superhero Films I’m “Supposed” to Hate: Batman Forever (1995)

Tomorrow, I’m going to be posting my review of my 14th least favorite superhero film of all time, Batman & Robin. I’m expecting to catch quite a bit of flak for having this so low on the list, as Batman & Robin is nearly universally considered to be one of the worst (if not the worst) superhero films of all time. As long as I’m going to be in hot water anyway, let’s just lay it all on the table right now. So, if I told you Batman & Robin was my 14th least favorite superhero of all time, in addition to being shocked at how low on the list that is, you’d probably be thinking, “Wait. You have Batman Forever rated as worse than Batman & Robin?”

Nope.

Which, of course, means Batman Forever isn’t on this list at all. I’m unlikely to escape not including Batman Forever on a list of my 15 least favorite superhero films of all time without explanation, so with these two films being “brothers” due to being Joel Schumacher’s two entries into the Batman film universe, I may as well address Batman Forever first, to inform tomorrow’s criticism of Batman & Robin.

After Tim Burton’s early-90s Batman blockbusters ignited the decade’s comic books explosion, many inside and outside of Hollywood realized that Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader was exceptionally dark (and not in a Chris Nolan Dark Knight kind of way), and probably not the most appropriate thing in the world for kids, who were a huge part of Warner’s target audience. So despite the fact that Batman Returns is practically begging for a sequel (“Batman Re-returns“?), the studio gave Burton the ax and turned the thing over to Joel Schumacher.

At this point, every Batman fan reading is already shuddering, having long ago equated “Schumacher” with “awful.” I now consider it my duty to stand up for the man. Joel Schumacher is actually a good filmmaker. Don’t believe me? Go watch The Client. You heard me. Go watch it. Now. Since you obviously listened to me and are already watching the film, at this point I can reveal that this adaptation of a John Grisham novel (prepare for unpleasant deja vu) is directed by Joel Schumacher and stars Tommy Lee Jones.

Here’s the thing: it works. It’s actually the best legal thriller I’ve ever seen. Yeah, you heard me: ever. I was so stunned by this film, it forced me to completely reevaluate everything I “knew” about Joel Schumacher. A quick glance at his filmography informed me that he directed the 2004 adaptation of Phantom of the Opera, which is one of the finest films I’ve ever seen and is certainly much more serious than his work on Batman. Further digging revealed that Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were not the Batman films he wanted to make at all. In fact, he wanted to make a much more serious film with darker themes based on Batman: Year One (if that sounds eerily familiar… yeah, we’re talking about basically what Chris Nolan did.) If Schumacher weren’t under heavy pressure from Warner Bros. to make a Batman film that would be primarily attractive to children and sell more action figures, it’s entirely possible we would remember him as the man to revitalize the Batman film franchise. It isn’t even really that far-fetched.

Was Batman Forever entirely without missteps? Of course not. I mean… look at it. But with that in mind, my entire perception of the film changes. Why? Because I did like it when I was a kid. A lot. Schumacher did exactly what the studio asked him to do, he made a film that sold a ton of action figures and helped create a marketing empire. Given his artistic sensibilities (as demonstrated in other films) and desire for a more serious interpretation of the character, it’s unlikely Schumacher himself was satisfied with the end product. That being said, he did find a way to put his own mark on the franchise by making the film not only kid-friendly, but intentionally over-the-top and campy. And all those neon colors and “comic booky” aesthetic that everyone suddenly always hated? They fit right in with the campy atmosphere of the films, they wouldn’t have looked very out of place in a lot of other superhero movies, and I’m kind of confused as to where all of this universal hatred was in 1995.

And hey, here’s an interesting thing: as Movie Bob pointed out recently, Batman Forever actually has the only interesting character development of any 1990s Batman film with Bruce Wayne briefly giving up his career as the Caped Crusader, and later deciding to continue to be Batman “not because I have to, but because I choose to.” Wait, what? Closure? A sense of optimism? And (this can’t possibly be overlooked) having Robin in his life as a positive influence?

This is the kind of turn that Christopher Nolan’s series (as much as I like it much better than Schumacher’s work, and like it in general) will never make. The reason Nolan absolutely refuses to make more than three movies is because he has no story left to tell. His Batman can’t have this sort of psychologically-healthy epiphany, he can never move on from his parents’ deaths. (Unless he does in The Dark Knight Rises and I end up looking like a giant idiot.) Optimism? Not in my Batman! (Except, you know, the character has clearly been depicted in the past as not constantly being alone and in pain and it’s worked just fine. See: the comics, Batman: The Animated Series, the Adam West live-action series which was clearly a source of inspiration here, Batman: The Brave and the Bold…)

Can you imagine a series of halfway-decent films about a psychologically-healthy Batman? Where did we get this idea that Batman is always, always, always dark and serious? Okay, Schumacher’s take on the character was far from perfect, but what if someone came along who could combine how enormous of a badass Batman is with him actually getting over his parents’ deaths? (Yeah, that’s already happened in a lot of comic book and animated iterations, but a live-action one? Can we get that Batman for Warner’s lead-in to the inevitable Justice League film?)

Okay, I’m getting carried away here, let’s bring it back in. Am I going to argue that this is a great film? NO!!! Are you kidding me??? It’s Batman Forever!!!

It does have some great elements. How about the acting? Val Kilmer could’ve been a better Batman than Keaton had he been given a more serious take on the character, and was already pretty compelling with the already-mentioned psychological exploration of the character. Nicole Kidman did great with what she had to work with. Chris O’Donnell was probably a good choice as Robin, and frankly was the thing I loved about the film the most in my childhood.

How about the villains? Here’s the biggest difference between Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Jim Carrey was absolutely fantastic as the Riddler in an interpretation that harkened back to the aforementioned Adam West television series. Tommy Lee Jones… well, yeah, okay: here’s where the first hints of where Batman & Robin was going to go horribly, horribly wrong came in. Tommy Lee Jones is absolutely hilarious in this film. He is an over-the-top, humorous villain who channels Silver Age villain personalities brilliant. What he isn’t… is Two-Face.

If Joel Schumacher had been able to cast Tommy Lee Jones as some random Silver Age villain (or an original villain based on Silver Age aesthetics), I would actually be able to make a pretty convincing argument that this is actually a good film. But in bowing to studio pressure to feature the popular villain (who didn’t fit the film’s tone at all), the film was ruined. Yeah, I know it sounds crazy, but a Batman film that was a little silly and featured a villain and armies of disposable henchmen actually could’ve worked.

Aside from the fact that it was admittedly kind of mediocre and had some fairly substantial problems, I think the main reason most people actually hate Batman Forever is that they conflate it with Batman & Robin, and I think that’s a pretty serious mistake. But let’s talk about that more tomorrow.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 15 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Favorite Superhero Films. #18: TMNT (2007)

Over the next few weeks I will be counting down my favorite (and least favorite) superhero films. For the purpose of this list, the only “rules” for what constitutes a superhero film will be that it reasonably seems like a superhero film. I won’t be applying any ridiculous standards that end up making Batman not a superhero because he has no super powers, or anything like that.

For those of you thinking, “Wait, 23? Isn’t that kind of a lot?” Keep in mind, the past few years alone have seen Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, Bryan Singer’s X-Men films, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, and the unprecedented Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy reading!

~-~-~

#18: TMNT (2007)

Though it was not as well-received as other incarnations of the heroes, I felt the 2007 computer-animated film TMNT found the ideal “middle ground” in which the characters could really flourish, and to this day I consider it a bitter disappointment that the film didn’t serve as a launching point for an entire series of computer-animated Ninja Turtles films. Computer-animation brought the turtles to life in a way that both traditional animation and live-action costumed versions couldn’t quite match. It was with bitter disappointment that I heard the franchise was instead turned over to Michael Bay for a live-action reboot, though the status of that project is now in flux with production on indefinite hold. Despite my misgivings, I am doing my best to reserve judgment and hope for the best if and when work on Bay’s reboot resumes.

Rendering the turtles with computer-animation finally gave the filmmakers the ability to bring the turtles to life in a way that both the traditional animation and live-action version can’t quite equal. They were finally able to depict the adventurous turtles performing spectacular acrobatic and athletic feats that makes it possible to fully realize the fun, adventurous atmosphere of this franchise.

The plot strikes a balance in being refreshingly light-hearted in comparison to the first live-action film, but not quite as silly as the live-action sequels or the Saturday morning cartoon responsible for this franchise’s burst in popularity. I feel like the Ninja Turtles franchise really hit its true stride here, realizing that it can take itself seriously without being completely serious. The computer-animated film did tip its cap toward being a spiritual sequel to the live-action franchise, however, with a brief opening montage stating that Shredder had been previously defeated and several references to the original films visible on Splinter’s “trophy wall.” The film is not devoid of complication, however, and actually explores conflict between the turtles themselves on a much deeper level than arguably any other incarnation.

At the film’s opening, Leonardo is in seclusion in South America, sent there for training by Master Splinter. He has been gone longer than expected, feeling himself unequal to the task of leading his brothers. April O’Neil, now using her investigative talents as a treasure hunter rather than an investigative journalist, encounters him there and tells him about how his brothers have drifted apart in his absence. Michelangelo, now working as a birthday party entertainer, seems to be the only turtle to have retained their adventurous spirit, but this leaves him feeling lonely when he returns to the hideout every day to find Donatello working as a phone IT specialist and Raphael sleeping all day in order to maintain his violent vigilante career as “Nightwatcher.”

The way in which the turtles drifted apart without Leonardo is actually quite believable, and a nod to well-established individual character traits of each turtle. Leonardo is convinced that his brothers need him again, and returns to New York. Donatello and (especially) Michelangelo are overjoyed to see him, but Raphael simmers with resentment which is really building toward a culmination (finally) of the historical baggage between these two characters.

With Leonardo’s return, Splinter gives the turtles permission to go to the surface to train, but not to fight until they can act as a team. Naturally, the turtles encounter a situation they really can’t ignore, leading to the first action scene of the film. The turtles find a huge monster destroying part of downtown Manhattan, and an old enemy: the Foot Clan, now led by female ninja Karai. Leonardo argues for a truce, but the turtles soon find themselves fighting both the monster and their traditional enemies. Here, we find out for the first time that the film features well-choreographed, eye-candy action scenes which will continue for the rest of the film. With the turtles now aware of the scope of the threat their city faces, they return to the sewers to plan their next move.

Before they can make their next move, however, the tensions between Leonardo and Raphael finally boil over, with Leonardo confronting his brother’s “Nightwatcher” persona, and then facing his brother in the fight this entire franchise has hinted at but never until now delivered. Their rooftop fight is personal, nasty, and revealing. The brothers’ negative traits (Leonardo’s sense of superiority and Raphael’s anger issues) are on full display. The aftermath of the fight leaves Raphael shaken, even moreso when he witnesses Leonardo being captured.

After Raphael admits his failure to Master Splinter, he, Donatello, Michelangelo, April, Casey, and Splinter himself set off to rescue the lost turtle. The rest of the film is an absolutely spectacular series of well-made action/adventure scenes in which the turtles finally rediscover their unified spirit and work as a team. After their victory, the film teases a sequel by having Karai warn the turtles to enjoy their victory while it lasts, claiming that they will soon have to face an “old enemy.”

There are a lot of things to love about this take on the Ninja Turtles franchise. I’ve already extolled the virtues of the computer animation, so I don’t want to overdo it, but I truly believe this was the best available medium for this franchise and am genuinely concerned about them taking a step back by returning to live-action (even more than I’m concerned about Michael Bay’s involvement, which is saying quite a bit.) This film also eschewed the franchise’s tendency to cast female characters exclusively in secondary roles, reimagining April O’Neil as a treasure hunter who can clearly hold her own in a fight and who fights side-by-side with the turtles during the endgame, while Karai fights Leonardo to a standstill, clearly a match for any of the turtles.

Many critics actually complained that this film lacked the “irony” of the live-action films, but I think that’s a silly complaint. I loved the unironic heroic vibe of this film, and I was looking forward to a revival of the Ninja Turtles franchise. Indeed, Karai’s last lines of the film tease a return of Shredder with her as a formidable new ally. I really couldn’t wait for hinted-at the series of computer-animated adventure films that (sadly) never came.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 14 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

My Superhero Movie Wish II

A few months ago, I wrote that if I could see one comic book franchise made into a film, it would be the original Alpha Flight team in a The Avengers-style blockbuster. While I confessed that this was clearly not ever going to happen (I’d honestly take an animated film at this point, which I’m also probably not going to get), there is another (much more realistically possible) superhero film I’d love to see happen: Spider-Woman.

Much like Nightwing from the DC Comics universe, Spider-Woman is another comic book character I “loved” before I knew very much about her. Admittedly, my experience with the character is still pretty limited (Spider-Woman: Origin, the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance video games, and poring over her Wikipedia page for her character history), what I’ve seen, I’ve loved.

Jessica Drew has the potential to be an iconic female superhero. Whichever origin story you use (the original one of a spider-based serum to save her from radiation poisoning, or the newer technology-based one from Origin), Jessica is actually recruited by the bad guys first, namely HYDRA. (We’ve already seen them in the Marvel Cinematic Universe thanks to Captain America: The First Avenger, and it would hardly be a stretch to have remnants of them still active in the future, right?)

This actually gives us a pretty intuitive “in” to introducing the character to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Have her as a villain (perhaps a minor one) in one of the (hopefully) inevitable Avengers sequels, or better yet in the Hawkeye/Black Widow spin-off everyone (including me) wants. Actually, there’s my superhero movie wish. Can you imagine how badass a fight between Black Widow and Spider-Woman would be? Let’s do that.

Then, after her first appearance as a villain, Spider-Woman (like she does in the comics) becomes a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent (giving you excellent material for her own spin-offs) and eventually a member of the Avengers, giving both fans and Joss Whedon another female face to be excited about. (The hidden subplot of The Avengers is that I’m astonished Joss was willing to work with just one female main character, but unsurprised he responded by making her one of the most badass characters in the film.)

Spider-Woman also acts as an agent of S.W.O.R.D. at one point, a S.H.I.E.L.D.-offshoot that Whedon himself actually created during his run at the helm of the Astonishing X-Men comics. This might make the character even more appealing to Whedon, and hopefully improves her chances of appearing in later installments of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. Because if there’s one flaw with The Avengers, it’s that it needed at least one more female main character. Not that I think it really could’ve pulled that off in the first installment, but now that the other characters have been well-established, I don’t see any reason why they can’t go there now.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers