Adam Graham's Blog: Christians and Superheroes, page 66
August 16, 2015
Book Review: Ultimate Comics Spider-man, Volume 1
Ultimate Comics Spider-Man by Brian Michael Bendis - Volume 1 by Brian Michael BendisMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Following the death of Peter Parker in the Ultimate Marvel Universe, Miles Morales took over as Spider-man for the Ultimate Universe. I had little interest at the time, but hearing that Miles will be in the all-new universe, I decided to give the book a try.
This book collects Issues 1-5 of Ultimate Comics Spider-man and Ultimate Comics Fall Out #4. The story covers Miles getting spider powers and how he became Spider-man after Peter Parker was killed.
Overall, I think the story is compelling. Miles has a very emotional beginning, a charter school lottery that he wins. We see the dynamics of his family, friends, and school. His first try at using Spider powers and why he decides to let them lie dormant until Peter Parker is killed. His attempts at becoming Spider-man with him wearing a costume rental version of the original suit that everyone considers in poor taste. It's a way for people in the fictional world to offer thoughts similar to what some people in the real world and that's a nice touch.
The main faults of the story can come to how you feel about writer Brian Michael Benedis' style and use of decompression. There is a ton of dialogue in this story, with pages full of people talking and the result is a story that seems to crawl at times. Also, I really thought that having images of Miles in his new Spider Suit on Issues 1-5 spoiled the actual reveal of the costume. The little bit from Ultimate Comics Fall Out also didn't seem to do much.
Still, Bendis succeed in getting us to care about a character replacing Peter Parker as Spider-man. Whichever Marvel Universe that is in, that's an achievement and I look forward to reading more.
View all my reviews
August 10, 2015
Book Review: Captain Marvel, Volume 2: Stay Fly
Captain Marvel, Vol. 2: Stay Fly by Kelly Sue DeConnickMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book collect five issues of Captain Marvel (issues 7-11) with Issue 10 being a double issue.
I thought after the first issue that while Silver Surfer was going for a Doctor Who Feel, Captain Marvel was very much a Star Trek-like book with Carol Danvers representing the Avengers far from home base just as Kirk did the Federation. That seems confirmed by the cover art which in many ways seemed to be an homage to the scene where tribles fell on Kirk's head in, "The Trouble with Tribles."
In Issue 7, it's confirmed that yes, Rocket was right and Carol's Cat's not really a cat but an alien creature that's very pregnant. This two issue story is played as a comedy but it just doesn't work for me. Again, the Star Trek analogy holds because oftentimes, Star Trek comedies aren't that funny either.
In Issue 9, she and her travelling companion Tic land with Lila Chaney on a planet where Lila got engaged to the price at a young age. Everyone speaks in rhyme and he story is amusing.
Issue 10 is puzzling. It's a double issue with a cover that's done in true retro silver age Marvel style heralding Danvers "100th Solo Adventure." It's an odd thing to celebrate since it includes the 10 issue in this Captain Marvel series, a prior Captain Marvel Series, a Miss Marvel series that preceded it, and a Miss Marvel series from the 1970s.(Perhaps there were a few more.) IThe Double issue ends up being focused on how her supporting cast on Earth (from Issue 1) deal with an enemy. This is a good story, but she's really a supporting character and doesn't do much at all. Which is kind of an odd way to celebrate a character's "100th Solo Adventure."
Then in Issue 11 she returns for Christmas and there is some genuinely touching stuff here.
Overall, this isn't a horrible book, but it does feel like it lost focus. The stories didn't serve Carol Danvers well. She's not best served by comedic storylines. She's a courageous warrior who likes to show determination and grit and hits things. I'll always remember her line, "I've got to go and punch a dinosaur." And the more the series gives her the ability to do things like that and the less it has her dealing with an overly pregnant alien cat, the better off we'll all be.
View all my reviews
August 9, 2015
Dawn of Justice: Disaster Movie or Disaster of a Movie
Well, lest I leave my series responding to Spec Faith's praise for The Man of the Steel, I want to respond to Austin Gunderson's exultant praise of Superman v. Batman: Dawn of Justice, a film that hasn't been released yet. (See my first part here.)
It's tough for me to work up much enthusiasm or dread over a movie that hasn't been released. I can only offer some impressions which can only be very different.
First, Gunderson and I fundamentally disagree on what makes a good superhero movie. For him, Man of Steel does it right in the way no other film can:
Reading his description makes me wonder why I actually liked Man of Steel when first released because it sounds utterly dreary.
The idea that he expresses suggests that there is a need in these movies to have these sort of "real life" discussions of superheroes:
You know what we don't have in the real world? Crashed alien spaceships with holograms of Russell Crowe, superpowered alien armies invading, and yeah, Superman. Gunderson prefers a superhero world where all of these deep serious things have to be dealt with. And I'm not saying they can't be. In fact introducing some real life elements into the story could be interesting, but it can be overwhelming to the actual thrust and point of superhero stories.
And there are other speculative stories that can be told that explore many of these themes quite well without the baggage using major superheroes like Superman and Batman brings. If you want to talk about war, think about Ender's Game or Starship Troopers. With superheroes, you can only press "real life" so far until it becomes an absurdity that misses the point of why people want to read or watch these heroes anyway.
Imagine doing a gritty realistic remake of Duck Tales and trying to raise the implication: 1) of the long term harm done to water fowl swimming through money, 2) whether ducks running around bottomless should lead to prosecution for indecent exposure and whether Scrooge should be charged with child endangerment for letting his nephews run around without trousers or shorts (Note: My wife suggests this would be the least of child endangerment charges against Scrooge), and 3) whether Scrooge was undercutting Huey, Dewey, and Louie's academic future by taking them on adventures rather than being sure that they were in school five days a week during the school year., 4) whether the FAA did its due diligence in giving Launchpad MacQuack a pilot's license and whether we need to increase testing in order to avoid such tragedies from happening again, 5) whether Scrooge's use of Gyro Gearloose is causing innocent ducks to suffer from not having full access to Gyro's brilliant inventions, 6) Whether Scrooge is responsible for the Beagle Boy's bad behavior and continual recidivism by keeping trillions of dollars in a bin rather than diversifying his liquid assets into the nation's banks, and 7) whether Scrooge's actions of keeping money in money bin harms the whole economy.
These are all important issues that you would have to debate if Duck Tales were in real life but there's one thing that makes this "realism" absurd. We don't have trillionaire ducks running around with truant nephews who don't wear trousers.
In fact, it's fair to say that when it comes to Comics the Big 2 have generally taken the approach Gunderson argues for in selling comics and the result has been a continual decline in comic book sales as the people who publish the books have little understanding of the people who would actually buy them so we end up with copious amounts of stories about consequences, whole issues consumed by people talking about these sort of problems while ignoring the fun and action that got people reading in the first place.
My approach to superhero media is different. I believe that superhero movies ideally should be fun, while also communicating a moral message through the life and actions of the heroes and the story itself. This can be seen through the Marvel movies and their moral center. Captain America's exemplifying courage or Thor learning humility are far more to me than having a "realistic moral universe" that deals with moral issues that will never touch the real life we actually inhabit and live in as opposed to a fantastic moral universe which has some very weird quirks but exemplifies morals and virtues that actually govern people's everyday lives.
I love the concept of Batman and Superman together. When I was eight years old, I wrote my first short story and it was about them coming together. But how does this movie look to me from all its publicity? Let me offer some half-baked speculation based on leaks and trailers:
1) It looks too dark: From a distance, when I first saw Wonder Woman's costume, it's coloring reminded me of Xena, Warrior Princess' black costume. The film looks about as fun or enjoyable as a long boring lecture full of speeches. I'd hoped that after such a dark beginning, we might have a reverse Empire Strikes Back where we might actually allow Superman some fun, some joyfulness. Nope, no such luck. It's going to be a dreary two to two and a half hours that's going to be a chore to get through (except for Gunderson and those who enjoy the brand of superhero film he prefers.)
2) It's trying to cut corners: The first ever cinematic pairing of Superman and Batman. That's really not enough for this movie to do. We also have to have Wonder Woman thrown in to the mix. The addition of Wonder Woman really screamed at me, "We've fallen so far behind Marvel and we have to catch up our cinematic universe and we're going to do it all in one movie!" Such haste makes waste in a cinematic. We've seen Joss Whedon do such a competent job in the Avengers movies with so many different characters that we forget how many disastrous comic book films have been hurt by including unnecessary characters they didn't have time to develop. Think of The Green Goblin in Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Venom in Spider-man 3. Even The Dark Knight Rises had Cat Woman wandering off for much of the film. The one film that really did make this work well was The Dark Knight where Joker was actually the cause of Two Face rather than the two being Independent.
As the Batman films of the 1990s proved, more villains and plot elements don't make for a better film. For example, Batman Returns managed to really showcase Catwoman and the Penguin by keeping Batman off stage for 80% of the movie.
Add to that the fact that DC is going to try and do the work they should do in two or three movies in one and I really don't think this will end well.
3) Batman Will Take Over:
Given DC's general bias towards Batman, I expect to this to be a Batman dominated film for both commercial and creative reasons. Superman will be in it but if Batman hasn't received more screen time and an overall more positive arc by the end of the movie, I'll be surprised.
Of course, I could be wrong, so could Gunderson. We don't really know and there's a certain folly in this. Still, I felt compelled to finish responding to this series.
As it stands now, Dawn of Justice will be premiering against Captain America: Civil War which is based on an utterly depressing storyline from Marvel. Still, at this point, I'd go to Civil War and wait to see Dawn of Justice until it hit the second run theaters and I have a day I'm in a mood to watch an even more dreary film.
It's tough for me to work up much enthusiasm or dread over a movie that hasn't been released. I can only offer some impressions which can only be very different.
First, Gunderson and I fundamentally disagree on what makes a good superhero movie. For him, Man of Steel does it right in the way no other film can:
But Man of Steel doesn’t break for comedic relief. It’s not interested in cushioning the blow of collapsing skyscrapers, or in using the imagery of destruction as an exciting backdrop for feel-good fun. When the towers fall in Metropolis, we’re reminded of September 11th, not Independence Day. And we don’t like that. This is supposed to be a superhero movie, dang it, not a serious movie! I came here to relax, not to grapple with the personal implications of Just War Theory!
Reading his description makes me wonder why I actually liked Man of Steel when first released because it sounds utterly dreary.
The idea that he expresses suggests that there is a need in these movies to have these sort of "real life" discussions of superheroes:
In the real world, people don’t extend you trust just because you claim the symbol on your chest means “hope.” In the real world, we instinctively distrust those who wield unfettered power — whether they be generals or politicians or the ever-nebulous Rich, no matter what their stated purpose. In the real world, someone’s ability to watch over you doesn’t automatically elicit goodwill. If it did, everyone would love the NSA.
You know what we don't have in the real world? Crashed alien spaceships with holograms of Russell Crowe, superpowered alien armies invading, and yeah, Superman. Gunderson prefers a superhero world where all of these deep serious things have to be dealt with. And I'm not saying they can't be. In fact introducing some real life elements into the story could be interesting, but it can be overwhelming to the actual thrust and point of superhero stories.
And there are other speculative stories that can be told that explore many of these themes quite well without the baggage using major superheroes like Superman and Batman brings. If you want to talk about war, think about Ender's Game or Starship Troopers. With superheroes, you can only press "real life" so far until it becomes an absurdity that misses the point of why people want to read or watch these heroes anyway.
Imagine doing a gritty realistic remake of Duck Tales and trying to raise the implication: 1) of the long term harm done to water fowl swimming through money, 2) whether ducks running around bottomless should lead to prosecution for indecent exposure and whether Scrooge should be charged with child endangerment for letting his nephews run around without trousers or shorts (Note: My wife suggests this would be the least of child endangerment charges against Scrooge), and 3) whether Scrooge was undercutting Huey, Dewey, and Louie's academic future by taking them on adventures rather than being sure that they were in school five days a week during the school year., 4) whether the FAA did its due diligence in giving Launchpad MacQuack a pilot's license and whether we need to increase testing in order to avoid such tragedies from happening again, 5) whether Scrooge's use of Gyro Gearloose is causing innocent ducks to suffer from not having full access to Gyro's brilliant inventions, 6) Whether Scrooge is responsible for the Beagle Boy's bad behavior and continual recidivism by keeping trillions of dollars in a bin rather than diversifying his liquid assets into the nation's banks, and 7) whether Scrooge's actions of keeping money in money bin harms the whole economy.
These are all important issues that you would have to debate if Duck Tales were in real life but there's one thing that makes this "realism" absurd. We don't have trillionaire ducks running around with truant nephews who don't wear trousers.
In fact, it's fair to say that when it comes to Comics the Big 2 have generally taken the approach Gunderson argues for in selling comics and the result has been a continual decline in comic book sales as the people who publish the books have little understanding of the people who would actually buy them so we end up with copious amounts of stories about consequences, whole issues consumed by people talking about these sort of problems while ignoring the fun and action that got people reading in the first place.
My approach to superhero media is different. I believe that superhero movies ideally should be fun, while also communicating a moral message through the life and actions of the heroes and the story itself. This can be seen through the Marvel movies and their moral center. Captain America's exemplifying courage or Thor learning humility are far more to me than having a "realistic moral universe" that deals with moral issues that will never touch the real life we actually inhabit and live in as opposed to a fantastic moral universe which has some very weird quirks but exemplifies morals and virtues that actually govern people's everyday lives.
I love the concept of Batman and Superman together. When I was eight years old, I wrote my first short story and it was about them coming together. But how does this movie look to me from all its publicity? Let me offer some half-baked speculation based on leaks and trailers:
1) It looks too dark: From a distance, when I first saw Wonder Woman's costume, it's coloring reminded me of Xena, Warrior Princess' black costume. The film looks about as fun or enjoyable as a long boring lecture full of speeches. I'd hoped that after such a dark beginning, we might have a reverse Empire Strikes Back where we might actually allow Superman some fun, some joyfulness. Nope, no such luck. It's going to be a dreary two to two and a half hours that's going to be a chore to get through (except for Gunderson and those who enjoy the brand of superhero film he prefers.)
2) It's trying to cut corners: The first ever cinematic pairing of Superman and Batman. That's really not enough for this movie to do. We also have to have Wonder Woman thrown in to the mix. The addition of Wonder Woman really screamed at me, "We've fallen so far behind Marvel and we have to catch up our cinematic universe and we're going to do it all in one movie!" Such haste makes waste in a cinematic. We've seen Joss Whedon do such a competent job in the Avengers movies with so many different characters that we forget how many disastrous comic book films have been hurt by including unnecessary characters they didn't have time to develop. Think of The Green Goblin in Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Venom in Spider-man 3. Even The Dark Knight Rises had Cat Woman wandering off for much of the film. The one film that really did make this work well was The Dark Knight where Joker was actually the cause of Two Face rather than the two being Independent.
As the Batman films of the 1990s proved, more villains and plot elements don't make for a better film. For example, Batman Returns managed to really showcase Catwoman and the Penguin by keeping Batman off stage for 80% of the movie.
Add to that the fact that DC is going to try and do the work they should do in two or three movies in one and I really don't think this will end well.
3) Batman Will Take Over:
Given DC's general bias towards Batman, I expect to this to be a Batman dominated film for both commercial and creative reasons. Superman will be in it but if Batman hasn't received more screen time and an overall more positive arc by the end of the movie, I'll be surprised.
Of course, I could be wrong, so could Gunderson. We don't really know and there's a certain folly in this. Still, I felt compelled to finish responding to this series.
As it stands now, Dawn of Justice will be premiering against Captain America: Civil War which is based on an utterly depressing storyline from Marvel. Still, at this point, I'd go to Civil War and wait to see Dawn of Justice until it hit the second run theaters and I have a day I'm in a mood to watch an even more dreary film.
August 8, 2015
Book Review: Superman Chronicles, Volume 8
The Superman Chronicles, Vol. 8 by Jerry SiegelMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This collection collects Superman Stories from Action Comics #44-#47 and Superman #14 and #15.
This book may be the best representative in the Chronicles of the very best of Golden Age Superman. The stories in this book vary greatly from a battle royale with Luthor in Action Comics #47 (where Luthor acquires super strength and near invulnerability) to Superman battling in an undersea kingdom, saving the day for a suicidal zookeeper to trouble at an amusement park. The variety here is very rich and all the stories are Superman golden age at their best.
The Luthor battle is the clear highlight of the book but I also find Superman #15 where Superman fights a pseudo Japan and a pseudo Germany in separate stories. Superman avoided direct involvement in the war and these stories illustrate why. Superman taking on a nation wouldn't be fair and would tend to undercut the nation's war efforts. Superman doesn't do that, but these stories do provide a kind of, "What if?" analysis.
Also, the cover of Superman #14 with the American Eagle on Superman's shoulder in awesome and one of the best comic book covers I've seen from the 1940s. It's right up there with Captain America punching Hitler.
Overall, this was the strongest volume of Superman Chronicles yet.
View all my reviews
August 7, 2015
Book Review: Batman Chronicles, Volume 4
The Batman Chronicles, Vol. 4 by Bill FingerMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book collect Batman stories from Detective Comics #51-56, World's Finest #2 and #3 and Batman #6 and #7, covering material from May-November 1941. These are very strong stories and there's a nice variety. There are two stories featuring signature Batman villains, but also Batman taking on river pirates, old west mysteries, a mystery set in timber country, and of course a good share of good old urban mysteries.
Some highlights of the book:
Viola Vane (Detective Comics #53): Bruce Wayne and a friend get into an argument over whether everyone in Gotham are heartless. Batman gets a chance to show the city has heart when he saves a wanna be actress who has been fibbing to her parents about the success of her career (she's actually a waitress.) Batman gets the city to set her up as a successful actress with jewels and furs. In many ways, this seems more like a typical Superman story rather than Batman. However, when some criminals muscle in on her and try to rob her that adds a nice twist.
The Scarecrow is introduced in World's Finest #3 (that's odd because World's Finest rarely has such fine material.) The story establishes many facts such as his occupation and name. However, the character's use of guns and violence is unusual and something that would be later abandoned.
The Joker has a very solid story leading off Batman #7 when he gets a bunch of practical jokers to start committing crimes for him. little by little. The twisted nature of the Joker is definitely on display in this story as he slowly turns them from regular practical jokes to a life of crime. Though the story is maybe a little over the top in telling kids that practical jokes leads to homicidal mania.
Perhaps, the most important change in the book is the focus of the relationship between Batman and the police. In issue 6, he helps a young patrolman with a tough beat defeat criminals and internal police corruption. Batman #7 features a very solid story, "The People vs. Batman" where Bruce Wayne is framed for murder and it's up to Robin to get the killers and eventually Batman is broken out of jail leading Commissioner Gordon to deliver a speech to the jury on Batman's virtue. In context, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as to why he would be making this speech in this context, but it's awesome speech. Not only is that, it shows a shift in the characters with Batman being appointed an honorary member of the Police force resulting in Batman and Gordon working close together for decades to come until the relationship would be redefined in the 1980s. That alone makes this a must-read chapter in the Batman story.
View all my reviews
August 3, 2015
Book Review: Doctor Who Series 2: The Girl Who Waited, The Boy Who Live
Doctor Who Series 2: The Girl Who Waited, The Boy Who Lived by Tony LeeMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
This book collects the Second IDW ongoing Eleventh Doctor Comic Book series for Doctor Who, all 16 Issues plus the 2011 Annual. The stories are essentially set either between Series 5 and 6 or during Series 6 itself on Television. Here's a story by story breakdown:
1) Spam Filtered: What happens when Amy and Rory attempt to check their email in the TARDIS? Their phones interact with the TARDIS and the result is Spam email messages brought to life. It's insanely wonderful madcap tale and a perfect start for the Comic. I was laughing throughout. Rating: A+
2)Ripper's Curse: Amy, Rory, and the Doctor investigate the Ripper murders. Really, a story that was good enough for television and the art is absolutely gorgeous on this one. It's a superb pseudo historical. Rating: A
3) They Think It's All Over: The Doctor arrives several centuries Early for a Soccer game and the TARDIS crew find themselves caught in the middle of medieval political intrigue. The only way out? A Soccer shout-out with Vikings. Fun, if a bit insubstantial. Grade: B+
4) When World's Collide: The Doctor, Rory, and Amy are having a holiday on a planet where people tour a variety of fantasy worlds from the Old West to the age of the dinosaurs. However, the Sontarans crash into a planet creating a confusing situation. I personally don't care for the art of Matthew Dow Smith compared to other's in the book. It's a lot cruder than in other stories and this story would have been a lot more fun with more vivid art. Still, it's okay. Grade: B
5) Space Squid: A one shot about the Doctor, Amy, Rory, and the newest companion Robot Dinosuar Kevin as he tries to find his place in the TARDIS. It's a decent concept and an okay story. Grade: B
6) Body Snatched: A somewhat dull and predictable body swap tale. Didn't really like that much at all. Very cliched. Grade: C-
7) Silent Knight: A silent Christmastime strip that tries to be funny relying on visual gags and mostly doesn't really succeed. Grade: C-
8) As Time Goes By: A Doctor Who story with a Casablanca theme. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't do much with the idea of Doctor Who in Casablanca, although there's a bit of an emotional element in there. Don't know where writer Joshua Hale Fialkov was going with this. Grade: B-
9) Run Doctor Run: This is the first of three tales in the Annual and each is more about art than story. This has the Doctor running around a strange landscape that kind of reminded me of Castrovalva. Grade: B-
10) Down to Earth: The Doctor checks in on a former alien invader who has repaired his spaceship. Okay, nothing spectacular. Grade: B
11) Tuesday: Amy's account of an adventure to save the crown from aliens and how Rory became the King. It's odd story but definitely fun. Grade: B+
Overall, there are some enjoyable stories here and the Series was better than the prior Tennant series which was weighed down by nostalgia. On the other hand, the quality differs quite a bit and the first volume is clearly the best with others not quite as strong.
View all my reviews
Never-Ending Battle Over the Man of Steel
Speculative Faith posted it's Eight Part Series on The Man of Steel with E Stephen Burnett and Austin Gunderson singing the praises of the 2013 film. I posted my series on the versions of Superman, and that's all background for this post on The Man of Steel.
It's an interesting series that shows their dedication and thought to the topic and it's a good collaboration. And I have to admit they make some good points. Still, I think they may overstate a few things and understate a few others, so I'll offer my thought.
I originally wrote my review for Man of Steel on Caffeinated Thoughts and I enjoyed the film. I thought there were some superb performances particularly Amy Adams as Lois, who played her as really heroic. The parts on Krypton were superb. They really had to work to tell a story that has become so incredibly familiar to Americans.
However, I had the same problem many had with the film: Superman's lack of protection for the innocent and the killing of Zod. The difference is how I viewed the movie and Superman. While I didn't care for these elements, the positives of the film made up for them, but for others they were dealbreakers. I thought and still think the good points of the movie far outnumber of the bad.
I kept in mind there are many different versions of Superman. No one portrayal can capture them all and this film captured Superman's overall decency as well as his willingness to sacrifice himself to save Earth. There was even a hit of the Golden Age Superman's more rowdy personality when Clark Kent did a number on the truck of the guy who was harassing the waitress.
Still, that's where much of the debate was centered and I didn't really go into my thoughts, because I was only writing a brief film review for CT, so I'm going to offer my extended thoughts.
My objection to killing him Zod was different. Given the circumstances, killing Zod was understandable maybe even necessary because that was the position the screenwriters put him in. However, I have a problem with doing this in the first movie because it really raises a lot of questions for the Man of Steel.
The point is made that Superman did kill Zod in Superman II. Emphasis on II. Superman: The Movie established how Superman normally worked and how he usually did things and preferred to. Then Superman II pushed him outside of what he preferred to do. John Byrne also had Superman kill Zod in the Comics, but this didn't happen in the early comics, Byrne established the status quo and then pushed Superman over the edge. It'd be fair for the viewer to wonder is killing the villain going to be always on the table. That may be more specifically addressed in the next film, but doing it in film one is awkward.
The explanation for why Zach Snyder had Superman kill Zod beggars belief because Snyder though the reason why Superman has a "no killing rule." Apparently in the twenty-first century, that he was raised to be a decent person and has a strong moral code isn't enough explanation. You need to have killed to have a rule against killing. Of course, most people have a "no killing rule" without having snapped anyone's neck.
The second problem is more substantive and that was the lack of care for bystanders and effort to get Zod away from populated areas, even when efforts could have been made to do so.
It was part of the Man of Steel that played into my story Ultimate Mid-life Crisis when a villain mocked Powerhouse's concern for innocents who would have been harmed by his scheme, I’ve been to the movies. Bystanders are cannon fodder to you super gods.”
It was an awesome spectacle, but it felt like Zod and Superman were battling Greek gods and the tiny mortals of Metropolis and Smallville were ants and individually irrelevant to the battling titans including the good guy.
Comic Book legend Mark Waid, who wrote some of the source material on which the movie was based, eloquently suggests that Superman's lack of effort to save people undermined the death of Zod:
Waid goes on to explain that we don't just expect Superman to save us, we expect him to protect us. "Once he puts on that suit, everyone he bothers to help along the way is pretty much an afterthought, a fly ball he might as well shag since he’s flying past anyway, so what the hell."
In essence, Waid says, "If you want me to buy that Superman killed Zod because he cared about preserving life than you have to show some effort to preserve life in the course of the prior forty minutes."
You can find justification for Superman killing, but not for failing to save life. Unless Superman's under the influence of Red Kryptonite, there's no precedent to support his indifference to "the little people" of the world. It's a fundamental violation of character. It's not enough to overwrite everything good about the movie, but it's also a problem. And it's not enough to merely say, "It'll be fodder for people to debate in the next movie, just like people are debating it outside the movie." It's a violation of character whether you're talking TV, Cartoons, Comics, or other medium. It's a legitimate point.
The best that could be offered what a footnote pointing out that Superman and the Kryptonians had a similar free-for-all in Superman II. This isn't argument that Burnett and Gunderson pursue but it has been on the Internet and it's worth responding to. You can watch the Superman II scene on You Tube.
There are several big differences between the scene in Superman II and Man of Steel. First, the tone of the movie and of the fight. While, there's peril there, it's ultimately minimal sort of fantasy comic book violence with a light tone and people standing in the street cheering Superman on as he punches out Zod. To use Superman II to defend Man of Steel's actions feels like trying to have you cake and eat it too. Because they've defended Man of Steel for taking death far more seriously than Superman II. You can't then turn around and say, "It was okay for Superman to put people's lives in danger in Man of Steel because he did it in Superman II." Because you're comparing risk to civilians in a realistic film v. one that took death and risk to human life about seriously as an episode of the A-Team. And even then, Superman is far more engaged in protecting lives in Superman II than he is in Man of Steel.
In many ways, my feelings on Man of Steel are not unlike my feelings on Spider-man 3. I enjoyed the film, but there were serious flaws such as the way Venom was handled, the length of the movie, and some of the silly and stupid things in the movie. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but it does mean there are some serious flaws for the film and I think the same applies to Man of Steel.
I also think that Burnett and Gunderson do give short shrift to concerns have about the tone of the movie. While it wasn't overwhelming to me, I get where people are coming from.
The idea they offer is that people have drawn a limited idea of what Superman is supposed me from Superman: The Movie and there are many ways to portray Superman. Still, people have expectations of a production with Superman in it.
They expect something lighter, brighter and uplifting. That's been ingrained from childhood from 1940s Comic Strips to the 1950s TV show to the Super Friends to the Superman movies to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman to Superman: The Animated Series. There may be some direct to video releases that were as dark as Man of Steel (Superman: Doomsday stands out) but that's the exception.
While they're right that films can deviate from expectations, they have to do so with caution. You could make a version of The Pink Panther that made Inspector Clouseau a hard-boiled serious character. You could do it well and the new Pink Panther would be a brilliant neo-noir Story. However, no matter how good of a noir thriller it was, it'd be a story that fans would be under no obligation to like or enjoy because it'd be such a radical departure from what people loved about Clouseau.
The same can be true of Superheroes and Superman in particular. Films are a service industry. When people go to the movies, they're expecting an experience. If they're looking for a movie to be hopefully and they leave feeling it's joyless, they'll be upset and that explains a lot of the reaction to the film.
Of course, as I've said, I did enjoy it and I still stand by that. But I also said I was looking forward to the sequel. Do I still feel that way? I'll continue that in my next piece.
It's an interesting series that shows their dedication and thought to the topic and it's a good collaboration. And I have to admit they make some good points. Still, I think they may overstate a few things and understate a few others, so I'll offer my thought.
I originally wrote my review for Man of Steel on Caffeinated Thoughts and I enjoyed the film. I thought there were some superb performances particularly Amy Adams as Lois, who played her as really heroic. The parts on Krypton were superb. They really had to work to tell a story that has become so incredibly familiar to Americans.
However, I had the same problem many had with the film: Superman's lack of protection for the innocent and the killing of Zod. The difference is how I viewed the movie and Superman. While I didn't care for these elements, the positives of the film made up for them, but for others they were dealbreakers. I thought and still think the good points of the movie far outnumber of the bad.
I kept in mind there are many different versions of Superman. No one portrayal can capture them all and this film captured Superman's overall decency as well as his willingness to sacrifice himself to save Earth. There was even a hit of the Golden Age Superman's more rowdy personality when Clark Kent did a number on the truck of the guy who was harassing the waitress.
Still, that's where much of the debate was centered and I didn't really go into my thoughts, because I was only writing a brief film review for CT, so I'm going to offer my extended thoughts.
My objection to killing him Zod was different. Given the circumstances, killing Zod was understandable maybe even necessary because that was the position the screenwriters put him in. However, I have a problem with doing this in the first movie because it really raises a lot of questions for the Man of Steel.
The point is made that Superman did kill Zod in Superman II. Emphasis on II. Superman: The Movie established how Superman normally worked and how he usually did things and preferred to. Then Superman II pushed him outside of what he preferred to do. John Byrne also had Superman kill Zod in the Comics, but this didn't happen in the early comics, Byrne established the status quo and then pushed Superman over the edge. It'd be fair for the viewer to wonder is killing the villain going to be always on the table. That may be more specifically addressed in the next film, but doing it in film one is awkward.
The explanation for why Zach Snyder had Superman kill Zod beggars belief because Snyder though the reason why Superman has a "no killing rule." Apparently in the twenty-first century, that he was raised to be a decent person and has a strong moral code isn't enough explanation. You need to have killed to have a rule against killing. Of course, most people have a "no killing rule" without having snapped anyone's neck.
The second problem is more substantive and that was the lack of care for bystanders and effort to get Zod away from populated areas, even when efforts could have been made to do so.
It was part of the Man of Steel that played into my story Ultimate Mid-life Crisis when a villain mocked Powerhouse's concern for innocents who would have been harmed by his scheme, I’ve been to the movies. Bystanders are cannon fodder to you super gods.”
It was an awesome spectacle, but it felt like Zod and Superman were battling Greek gods and the tiny mortals of Metropolis and Smallville were ants and individually irrelevant to the battling titans including the good guy.
Comic Book legend Mark Waid, who wrote some of the source material on which the movie was based, eloquently suggests that Superman's lack of effort to save people undermined the death of Zod:
...I realized that it wasn’t so much my uncompromising vision of Superman that made this a total-fail moment for me; it was the failed lead-up TO the moment. As Superman’s having his final one-on-one battle with Zod, show me that he’s going out of his way to save people from getting caught in the middle. SHOW ME that trying to simultaneously protect humans and beat Zod is achingly, achingly costing Superman the fight. Build to that moment of the hard choice…show me, without doubt, that Superman has no other out and do a better job of convincing me that it’s a hard decision to make, and maybe I’ll give it to you.
Waid goes on to explain that we don't just expect Superman to save us, we expect him to protect us. "Once he puts on that suit, everyone he bothers to help along the way is pretty much an afterthought, a fly ball he might as well shag since he’s flying past anyway, so what the hell."
In essence, Waid says, "If you want me to buy that Superman killed Zod because he cared about preserving life than you have to show some effort to preserve life in the course of the prior forty minutes."
You can find justification for Superman killing, but not for failing to save life. Unless Superman's under the influence of Red Kryptonite, there's no precedent to support his indifference to "the little people" of the world. It's a fundamental violation of character. It's not enough to overwrite everything good about the movie, but it's also a problem. And it's not enough to merely say, "It'll be fodder for people to debate in the next movie, just like people are debating it outside the movie." It's a violation of character whether you're talking TV, Cartoons, Comics, or other medium. It's a legitimate point.
The best that could be offered what a footnote pointing out that Superman and the Kryptonians had a similar free-for-all in Superman II. This isn't argument that Burnett and Gunderson pursue but it has been on the Internet and it's worth responding to. You can watch the Superman II scene on You Tube.
There are several big differences between the scene in Superman II and Man of Steel. First, the tone of the movie and of the fight. While, there's peril there, it's ultimately minimal sort of fantasy comic book violence with a light tone and people standing in the street cheering Superman on as he punches out Zod. To use Superman II to defend Man of Steel's actions feels like trying to have you cake and eat it too. Because they've defended Man of Steel for taking death far more seriously than Superman II. You can't then turn around and say, "It was okay for Superman to put people's lives in danger in Man of Steel because he did it in Superman II." Because you're comparing risk to civilians in a realistic film v. one that took death and risk to human life about seriously as an episode of the A-Team. And even then, Superman is far more engaged in protecting lives in Superman II than he is in Man of Steel.
In many ways, my feelings on Man of Steel are not unlike my feelings on Spider-man 3. I enjoyed the film, but there were serious flaws such as the way Venom was handled, the length of the movie, and some of the silly and stupid things in the movie. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but it does mean there are some serious flaws for the film and I think the same applies to Man of Steel.
I also think that Burnett and Gunderson do give short shrift to concerns have about the tone of the movie. While it wasn't overwhelming to me, I get where people are coming from.
The idea they offer is that people have drawn a limited idea of what Superman is supposed me from Superman: The Movie and there are many ways to portray Superman. Still, people have expectations of a production with Superman in it.
They expect something lighter, brighter and uplifting. That's been ingrained from childhood from 1940s Comic Strips to the 1950s TV show to the Super Friends to the Superman movies to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman to Superman: The Animated Series. There may be some direct to video releases that were as dark as Man of Steel (Superman: Doomsday stands out) but that's the exception.
While they're right that films can deviate from expectations, they have to do so with caution. You could make a version of The Pink Panther that made Inspector Clouseau a hard-boiled serious character. You could do it well and the new Pink Panther would be a brilliant neo-noir Story. However, no matter how good of a noir thriller it was, it'd be a story that fans would be under no obligation to like or enjoy because it'd be such a radical departure from what people loved about Clouseau.
The same can be true of Superheroes and Superman in particular. Films are a service industry. When people go to the movies, they're expecting an experience. If they're looking for a movie to be hopefully and they leave feeling it's joyless, they'll be upset and that explains a lot of the reaction to the film.
Of course, as I've said, I did enjoy it and I still stand by that. But I also said I was looking forward to the sequel. Do I still feel that way? I'll continue that in my next piece.
July 31, 2015
Book Review: Doctor Who: Engines of War
Doctor Who: Engines of War by George MannMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
The Time War was always at the background of the first Seven Series of New Who with the Doctor occasionally mentioning that he had to destroy his own people along with the Daleks to end the War. Yet, details were always a bit sketchy, with the most we ever learned was through, "The End of Time," with the Tenth Doctor desperate to stop the return of Rasillon and telling the Master of how bad the Time War was with Skaro Degradations and the Nightmare Child and Rasillon's plan to end all physical existence in the Universe. In "Name of the Doctor," we learned there was a different version of the Doctor who fought in the Time War and in "Day of the Doctor" we saw him cry, "No more!" and prepare to use the Moment to wipe both sides out. "Engines of War" is the War Doctor's story and what drove him to use the Moment.a
The War Doctor crashes on the Planet Moldox where he encounters Cinder, a young woman whose family has been killed by the Daleks and whose young life has been spent destroying as many as possible. The Doctor discovers a Dalek super weapon which the Daleks plan to use to destroy Gallifrey and he and Cinder go and warn the Time Lords. However, Rassilon's plan for dealing with it will wipe out life on twelve planets. Thus, it's up to the Doctor to stop both the Time Lords and the Daleks.
Putting aside that this is Doctor Who, Engines of War is just an incredibly well-crafted and well-written tale from Start to finish. It's combination of political intrigue, action, and personal drama is well-crafted and fully engaging.
Engines of War shows the Time War in all its horror. Innocent people are caught in a crossfire between the two sides with Cinder and the people of Moldox representing thousands of other planets caught in the struggle. The horrific new Dalek creations of mutants are revolting. Yet, the Time Lords are little better as Rassilon has strapped what remains of the Doctor's old mentor Borousa (who betrayed him to the Five Doctors) to a "possibility engine" which attempts to give the Time Lords an edge. The Time Lord Karlax is sadistic and malevolent and represents the decline of all the Time Lords in the midst of this lengthy war.
At the same time, the book reveals insights into the War Doctor and Mann writes a character that while he no longer claims the name of the Doctor, he still very much is that man. This Doctor still has his eccentric moments. He also strikes up a very warm relationship with Cinder. There's very little this Doctor does that wouldn't have been in character for mother incarnations of the Doctor. Only his attempt to throttle Karlax in the High Council chamber stands out and the Third Doctor might have tried that.
Nicholas Briggs commented in the extras for, "Dark Eyes" that a story about the Time War would be pretty boring but then added that statement might come back to haunt him. So of course, he ends up narrating the novel about the Time War and doing an amazing job. Briggs is legendary for his Dalek voices but is a very strong actor. It's hard to imagine that John Hurt would have done any better, particularly with all the other voices. Briggs brings every character to life and showcases the range of his vocal talent. BBC audiobooks didn't spare any expense with its sound effects and it really does build this epic feel.
There's very little to criticize with this book. I will say that the Chapter with Jocelyn Harris, a Governor of a province who appears in one chapter and is killed, is kind of pointless. Also, some of the basic ideas of the War Doctor from the TV show seem to have not really been followed through. The War Doctor explains that he's no longer called the Doctor once. And thereafter, everyone in the book calls him the Doctor and he makes no attempt to correct them. It does seem like the Doctor would have come up with another name during the War if he wasn't going by the Doctor. Also, it's not really believable that the Doctor would not have weapons on the TARDIS during the Time War. And if he didn't, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine an unarmed Type 40 into battle along with Battle TARDISes against Dalek fleets. It seemed like there was discomfort with having the Doctor use weapons even if this incarnation was supposed to be a "warrior."
Still, despite these minor flaws, this is an essential audiobook that does the Time War justice.
View all my reviews
July 30, 2015
The Many Versions of Superman, Part Four: The Anti-Batman and the Greek God
See Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. We've covered five different approaches to Superman. Here are the last two and they're definitely of more modern vintage.
6) The Anti-Batman:
This is definitely a post-Crisis theme. Superman and Batman were pals when they first met on the radio in 1943, and then in comics in 1952. The two began teaming up together every month together in World's Finest Comics in 1954 and continuing until1 1985.
When the DC universe rebooted with Crisis on Infinite Earts in the 1980s, things changed. When Superman and Batman first meet in the new DC Universe in Man of Steel #3, Superman goes to Gotham City to stop Batman. The two end up teaming up reluctantly and the new precedent is set for the DC Universe. Superman and Batman do grow closer, but their contrasts in style has them at odds over tactics, though very rarely over who or what to fight.
As Batman became bigger, Superman became defined by not being Batman. This could be taken in both a positive and a negative light for Superman.
If you wanted to be positive about Superman, you'd say, "Superman tries to make a difference by inspiring hope, Batman tries to make a difference by inspiring fear." Superman is far bright and friendlier.
On the other hand, you could say that Batman is more realistic. Batman isn't afraid to do what has to be done. Superman flies through bright skies like a god but Batman is in the grime where people are actually suffering and is willing to be tough when that's what's called.
Or you could go point out that even though Superman isn't human, he lives among humans, he represents our best values and aspirations. He's Clark Kent and identifies fully with humanity. Bruce Wayne may technically be human, but he lives apart from them except in the most shallow and superficial ways. He uses wealth to insulate himself, so he can sit in the batcave and viewing us with a cynical eye, no more human that the Bat Computer.
Or you could go again. Superman may claim to be more friendly or more approachable, but he keeps his secret from the most important people in his life. Batman has Robin (multiple Robins), Alfred, and a strong supporting team. Because despite his gruffness, he really is one of us.
You could go at this for YEARS and never stop coming up with things. It's a trope with great writers and hacks alike having mined.
Frank Miller was a Batman guy in the extreme portraying, Superman as the evil establishment tool of the government in his 1986 Graphic Novel, the Dark Knight Returns, while Batman is the true hero who will stand against evil. The two fight and of course, Batman wins.
Miller's at the extreme edge, but illustrates why this has been problematic. While the Superman-Batman comparison is something writers like, it's hurt the Man of Steel's brand as many more Comic writers are Batman fans first. Being the anti-Batman not a great way to make a character liked.
At the comic book stand, Superman is consistently outsold by Batman by a wide margin. In March, the best-selling Superman comic finished 25th out of all comics behind three different Batman titles. One thing that makes these comparisons hurt Superman so much is that the writers tend to lean strongly towards Batman as does a lot of the fan base. Still, it's been a big part of what defines Superman and for better, it'll stay that way for a while.
7) The Greek God
One thing that confuses people about early Superman media is the fact that Superman's enemies were not really threats to the Man of Steel: mobsters, mad scientists, corrupt government officials. Only the occasional alien was worth Superman sweating over.
Golden Age Superman was about catharsis. People really suffered at the hands of mobsters, corrupt politicians, and injustice. They didn't want the bad guys to have a fair shot. They wanted Superman to grab them and play catch several in the air until the big strong villains cried for mercy.
As most Comic book fans are far from oppressed (particularly with the prices many companies are charging), the activities of our heroes are viewed far more dispassionately as fans want Superman to face tough challenges.
This can be carried to extremes though. There are many fans where Good, evil, it doesn't really matter. They just want big battles, Superman pounding the heck out of someone or something.
In essence, I think they want him to be less a type of Christ and more a type of a Greek God, all filled with epic fights and exploits. Goodness or morality isn't part of this vision of Superman.
Of course, this shows up in other ways, too. In the old days, it was all about the romance between Superman and Lois Lane. But in the view of those who like Superman as a bit of a Greek god, why have Lois Lane when you can have and Wonder Woman, which was the big power couple since the latest DC reboot, with Superman and Wonder Woman considered the "D.C. Universe's Power Couple."
Thus Superman becomes less the man who was really Clark Kent and identifies with humanity and more the Greek god that smashes things and has epic battles. I'm not a fan of this new idea of Superman, but I don't write DC Comics.
Anyway, in our next post, we finally turn to offering thoughts on the Man of Steel and responding to Speculative Faith's epic defense.
6) The Anti-Batman:
This is definitely a post-Crisis theme. Superman and Batman were pals when they first met on the radio in 1943, and then in comics in 1952. The two began teaming up together every month together in World's Finest Comics in 1954 and continuing until1 1985.
When the DC universe rebooted with Crisis on Infinite Earts in the 1980s, things changed. When Superman and Batman first meet in the new DC Universe in Man of Steel #3, Superman goes to Gotham City to stop Batman. The two end up teaming up reluctantly and the new precedent is set for the DC Universe. Superman and Batman do grow closer, but their contrasts in style has them at odds over tactics, though very rarely over who or what to fight.
As Batman became bigger, Superman became defined by not being Batman. This could be taken in both a positive and a negative light for Superman.
If you wanted to be positive about Superman, you'd say, "Superman tries to make a difference by inspiring hope, Batman tries to make a difference by inspiring fear." Superman is far bright and friendlier.
On the other hand, you could say that Batman is more realistic. Batman isn't afraid to do what has to be done. Superman flies through bright skies like a god but Batman is in the grime where people are actually suffering and is willing to be tough when that's what's called.
Or you could go point out that even though Superman isn't human, he lives among humans, he represents our best values and aspirations. He's Clark Kent and identifies fully with humanity. Bruce Wayne may technically be human, but he lives apart from them except in the most shallow and superficial ways. He uses wealth to insulate himself, so he can sit in the batcave and viewing us with a cynical eye, no more human that the Bat Computer.
Or you could go again. Superman may claim to be more friendly or more approachable, but he keeps his secret from the most important people in his life. Batman has Robin (multiple Robins), Alfred, and a strong supporting team. Because despite his gruffness, he really is one of us.
You could go at this for YEARS and never stop coming up with things. It's a trope with great writers and hacks alike having mined.
Frank Miller was a Batman guy in the extreme portraying, Superman as the evil establishment tool of the government in his 1986 Graphic Novel, the Dark Knight Returns, while Batman is the true hero who will stand against evil. The two fight and of course, Batman wins.
Miller's at the extreme edge, but illustrates why this has been problematic. While the Superman-Batman comparison is something writers like, it's hurt the Man of Steel's brand as many more Comic writers are Batman fans first. Being the anti-Batman not a great way to make a character liked.
At the comic book stand, Superman is consistently outsold by Batman by a wide margin. In March, the best-selling Superman comic finished 25th out of all comics behind three different Batman titles. One thing that makes these comparisons hurt Superman so much is that the writers tend to lean strongly towards Batman as does a lot of the fan base. Still, it's been a big part of what defines Superman and for better, it'll stay that way for a while.
7) The Greek God
One thing that confuses people about early Superman media is the fact that Superman's enemies were not really threats to the Man of Steel: mobsters, mad scientists, corrupt government officials. Only the occasional alien was worth Superman sweating over.
Golden Age Superman was about catharsis. People really suffered at the hands of mobsters, corrupt politicians, and injustice. They didn't want the bad guys to have a fair shot. They wanted Superman to grab them and play catch several in the air until the big strong villains cried for mercy.
As most Comic book fans are far from oppressed (particularly with the prices many companies are charging), the activities of our heroes are viewed far more dispassionately as fans want Superman to face tough challenges.
This can be carried to extremes though. There are many fans where Good, evil, it doesn't really matter. They just want big battles, Superman pounding the heck out of someone or something.
In essence, I think they want him to be less a type of Christ and more a type of a Greek God, all filled with epic fights and exploits. Goodness or morality isn't part of this vision of Superman.
Of course, this shows up in other ways, too. In the old days, it was all about the romance between Superman and Lois Lane. But in the view of those who like Superman as a bit of a Greek god, why have Lois Lane when you can have and Wonder Woman, which was the big power couple since the latest DC reboot, with Superman and Wonder Woman considered the "D.C. Universe's Power Couple."
Thus Superman becomes less the man who was really Clark Kent and identifies with humanity and more the Greek god that smashes things and has epic battles. I'm not a fan of this new idea of Superman, but I don't write DC Comics.
Anyway, in our next post, we finally turn to offering thoughts on the Man of Steel and responding to Speculative Faith's epic defense.
July 28, 2015
Book Review: Atomic Robo and the Fightin' Scientists of Tesladyne
Atomic Robo and the Fightin' Scientists of Tesladyne by Brian ClevingerMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
This book is about Atomic Robo, an Eighty-three year old self-aware wise-cracking robot originally created by Nicola Tesla.
The robot's adventures span decades and being a robot it makes more sense than it does with people who have this sort of lifespan. Most of the stories are set in the then-present day of 2007, but begins with how he first gained his citizenship and Independence by taking a down a 1930s Nazi operation. Issue 2 takes us to the Present Day where Robo is the head of TESLADYNE, a think tank with guns and handles weird scientific threats. He also reflects back on the past and the book has its one poignant moment.
Issues 3 and 4 has Atomic Robo and his team dealing with the Pyramids coming to life in Ancient Egypt. Issues 5 and 6 brings the book full circle as Robo fights his oldest enemy.
Overall, this is just a fun book. The plot's not brilliant, but it's a thrilling adventure story. It doesn't try to be profound or particularly edgy. It just tries to be fun and succeeds in spades. Robo makes a great hero with plenty of sarcasm, and there are some interesting scientific ideas. Except for one joke about robot porn, this would actually be a decent book for kids too. Overall, I found this a delightful book and will end up reading more.
View all my reviews
Christians and Superheroes
I'm a Christian who writes superhero fiction (some parody and some serious.)
On this blog, we'll take a look at:
1) Superhero stories
2) Issues of faith in relation to Superhero stories
3) Writing Superhe ...more
On this blog, we'll take a look at:
1) Superhero stories
2) Issues of faith in relation to Superhero stories
3) Writing Superhe ...more
- Adam Graham's profile
- 69 followers
