The new Batman video game, for example, has swearing and harsh language in it.  In particular, many people have raised concerns that when playing as Catwoman, you are subject to constant unpleasant language and mild threats of rape by the thugs she runs across.

The hardcore gamers dismiss these concerns as silly because having thugs and henchmen be obnoxious and threatening is “realistic”.  There might be something to that, too.  If this wasn’t a game built upon pretending to be a billionaire dressed as a bat who spends his nights fighting criminals dressed as clowns and Alice in Wonderland characters.  If the Batman’s universe was realistic, then he’d either be shot in the back one random night or be so beat up and burnt out from his double life that he’d be a broken wreck.

Superheroes have always struggled with the fantastic and the realistic.  Batman has struggled the most.  Probably because so many of his fans seem to think he’s more “realistic” than other heroes.  I’m not going to get into that fallacy here.  I’ve wasted too many precious hours on that debate.  Regardless of where you stand on that debate, few people would want to read the Batman story where he trips on his cape and plummets to his death while on patrol, realistic as that possibility might be.

Realistically, Bruce Wayne could choke to death on a piece of pie.

I’m not interested in reading the story (or playing the video game) where ensuring Bruce Wayne chews his food properly is the key plot point.  But if you’re going to pull out the “realism” argument, then you can’t just stop where it suits your needs.

Given his status as Gotham’s wealthiest citizen and the obvious fact that Batman needs to have major funding to do what he does, it seems strange that no one has ever connected Wayne and his alter ego.  Or that a man with a prominent face can hide it behind half a mask and not still be recognized.  Or that a single man could have the time and ability to master every esoteric field of study, ranging from acrobatics to chemistry to art history.

And let’s not even get into his bad guys.  A guy with white skin and a hideous grimace who dresses in purple tuxedos.  A man with half his face burnt off.  A pulp style immortal evil mastermind who wants to wipe out the human race.  A crocodile man.  A shapeshifter.  A plant woman.

Realism and Batman are not friends.

This is not to say that a writer needs to throw realism completely out the window.  But when an unnecessary element of realism is introduced for no good reason, realism is not a defense.  It’s the same sort of half-logic that causes some folks to complain that children NPCs can’t die in Skyrim and that this fact “ruins the immersion”.

Oh, I’m sorry.  I didn’t realize that in the game where you pretend to be a dragonslaying badass who can throw fireballs and slay giants that NOT having roasting children would break the illusion.

OR

Dopey me.  I kind of assumed that if you were going to play Catwoman in a video game, you might get tired of being called a bitch a thousand and one times.  But, no, that’s REALISM.  Thanks for clearing that up.

To be perfectly clear, I don’t care if a Batman video game has (justified or not) hostility towards women.  And I don’t care if Catwoman slinks around in a sexy costume and uses kisses to disarm her opponents.  Okay, that’s a lie.  I do care.  I’ll go on record as saying a Batman game shouldn’t have these things in it.  Certainly shouldn’t have them casually strewn about.  But that’s just one guy’s opinion, and if I don’t like the game, I don’t have to play it.

But on the other end, you can’t just say “It’s realistic” and not expect me to roll my eyes a bit.  If your best justification for something unpleasant in a Batman story or video game is that it serves realism then I feel like you’ve already lost the debate.

Did I mention he fights a guy who has a freeze ray?

Realism in this context always seems to mean something other than realism.  It means a pocket of realism in an otherwise unrealistic realm.  And more often than not, that realism is aimed at shock value and “mature” content for its own sake.  So let’s just call it what it so often is.

Pandering.

I’ll stick with Skylanders myself.  Not only is it apologetically unrealistic, it’s also a game where its female characters (though too few) are not subject to dopey fetishism or “justified” sexism.  Stealth Elf is Catwoman without the baggage (and with the ability to vanish, leaving razor scarecrows in her place).  And Hex doesn’t slink around in a catsuit with a whip and wrap her legs around her foes like some softcore pornstar.  She fires shadowbolts and rains screaming skulls from the sky.  And she does it with style.

And really, I’m just glad to have female characters who are treated with respect.  Though apparently they have to hang out with dragons and boomerang throwing dinosaurs to get it.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

http://t.co/xLybYMD

For long time, I’ve mostly ignored this accepted “truth”.  I haven’t tried to make a big deal about it because why should I care?  If people want to watch dark shows where everyone’s an asshole, then that’s their choice.  But this live and let live attitude has not been returned.  I have sat by as the dark side wages war against the other side.  The truth is that I can’t ignore films like The Dark Knight and all the praise they get because, inevitably, it leads to outright hostility toward anything even remotely different.

I hate the term “culture war”.  And its standard use doesn’t fit this topic very well.  But there is a battle for our cultural media, how it portrays good guys and bad guys, how it tells stories, and which stories are valued.  If the critics who heaped loads of praise on The Dark Knight and First Class insist insist on attacking a good, fun, and smart film like Green Lantern, then somebody has to step up and counterattack.  And it appears that person is me.

Here goes:

Green Lantern is a heck of a good film.  Perhaps the best superhero flick I’ve seen in ages.  It is fun, lively, and has a terrific little story that never loses sight of its human characters.  It promises an epic battle and (mostly) delivers, and has some very creative action adventure pieces.  In short, Green Lantern is everything any reasonable person should expect from a magic ring space cop movie.  And even a little more.

This is a movie that dares to say being a superhero is cool.  Hal Jordan is not damaged goods.  He doesn’t come from a tragic past.  He isn’t fighting against a psychopath clown.  And in the end, he is a good man fighting to stop a monstrous evil.  His character arc GL is well-planned, believable, and satisfying.  His supporting cast is just important and established enough to make us care about them without making them cardboard characters.  And his use of his powers is every bit as fun and absurd as they should be.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.  Anyone who says The Dark Knight or Watchmen are provably superior films is wrong.  Given the nature of all these films and their goals, comparing them is like trying to pick your favorite food.  They aren’t trying to satisfy the same appetite.  And this isn’t a failing on GL‘s part.  This is a deliberate choice.  One I can fully get behind.

If I have to pick a side in this cultural war, I’ll take an unapologetic film like Green Lantern over an aching to be meaningful film like Dark Knight anyday.  I shouldn’t have to pick though.  Fans should be able to like what they like without falling into the trap of “My superhero is better than your superhero” nonsense.

The FX in GL are outstanding.  Even if they weren’t, I know this is a story about aliens and monsters.  As long as the FX are trying, I can play along.  Although, really, the FX are outstanding.  I think people are less annoyed by the FX and more by the more fantastic elements.

GL‘s one weakness comes in the appearance of Amanda Waller.  She’s a great character who is in here for no clear reason, who accomplishes nothing, and who demonstrates none of her comic book portrayal’s competence and demeanor.  It’s annoying that, while the character is short and overweight in the comics, she is tall and leggy (and even introduced wearing ridiculous heels).  But it’s more annoying that she appears to be an entirely different character.  I could take skinny Amanda Waller.  I can’t take dumbass Amanda Waller.

Yes, shame on you Green Lantern for this major mistake in an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable film.

So if you are hesitant to see Green Lantern because of the negative reviews, I’m here to say ignore them.  Unless you hate the fantastic and prefer your superheroes more grounded in reality.  That’s okay too.  Just don’t get mad at me for enjoying a less dark, more positive superhero where the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and where punching a fear monster in the face with a giant fist is what heroes do.

There’s a line in GL that summarizes everything I love about this film and how ridiculous I find its critics.

“I’m sorry.  Did I embarrass you when I created a racetrack out of pure willpower and saved hundreds of lives?”

Hell, no, Green Lantern.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

But this is beside the point because, as ridiculous as I find that aspect of Spidey, it is irrelevant if I’m actually enjoying the stories.  And Spectacular Spider-Man is enjoyable.  It captures the essence of the character.  It also dares to be fun.  It isn’t silliness.  Well, other than the silliness of people in funny costumes with weird powers fighting each other.  But that’s innate to superheroes, who are all pretty damn stupid if taken at face value.  Superheroes are fantasy.

The thing about Spectacular is that it proves that you can create great superhero stories with maturity and intelligence and (lest we forget) fun!  You don’t need sex or blood or gore.  And the notion that these elements are necessary to tell a great, intelligent story is just plain wrong.

Don’t misquote me.  I’m all for sex and gore where appropriate.  Some of my novels have more of this than others, but it’s not something I think a lot about.  If it belongs there, I put it in.  If it doesn’t, I don’t.  I don’t include “mature” elements just because I’m supposed to, and I don’t exclude them for fear of offending.  But I do leave them out sometimes because I find they don’t really add anything.

Ultimately, the inclusion of any element doesn’t really make or break a story.  Sex and gore can be implied without really losing anything.  None of my books have any real sex in them because I find nothing interesting to be written about sex.  I’m perfectly comfortable with seeing two characters embrace and cutting to the afterglow.  I did have a sex scene, of sorts, in Gil’s and Monster.  Neither is particularly graphic.  And, ironically, both are written to illustrate a rather dull sort of relationship between the couples in question.

Spectacular Spider-Man has nothing much sexual, aside from an unrequited crush here and there.  But it’s really about the emotions, and in that way, we see characters interact on that level.  But what about gore?

Spectacular has none of that.  There’s no blood, no guts.  The violence is cartoonish, which is just fine by me.  On the other hand, when The Lizard makes his first appearance, he is portrayed as a vicious creature who would happily eat people if Spidey wasn’t there to get in his way.  The threat of The Lizard is implied, but just because we aren’t treated to a in-your-face view of him eviscerating little children, it doesn’t make him seem less dangerous.  It’s clear that without Spidey, things would quickly get messy.

This has several elements I like.  It keeps me from having to despise The Lizard, a good man who is a victim of well-intentioned science.  This is important to me as recurring villains who are unrepetent monsters just aren’t fun.  A Joker who menaces Gotham but is foiled by Batman is fine by me.  A Joker who kills hundreds and yet is allowed to rampage unopposed is an exercise in hypocracy.  It also brings up the whole point of superheroes.  Superheroes save people.  They try to make the world a better place.  Superheroes who just clean up the messes, who merely punch out the bad guy after he’s killed and maimed, isn’t anything special.  The fantasy of the superhero is men and women of action who save the day.  Superheroes who fail to save the day regularly are just people with weird powers who fail.

In The Lizard episode of Spectacular, Peter Parker debates seriously taking an antidote that would remove his powers.  In mainstream Spidey comics, I don’t see why he would hesitate.  His superpowers have only made his life harder, and they haven’t helped him help those around him either.  His friends die.  His supervillains continually menace him.  He’s barely a stopgap and most of his actions are meaningless.  He’s worthless as a superhero.  He’d be much better off as a regular guy, free to pursue his education and career.

In the Spectacular episode though, he realizes that it was Spider-Man who kept The Lizard from becoming a monster.  It was Spidey who saved a family the grief and pain Spidey has had to suffer.  And that not only makes Spider-Man actually seem like a person with responsibility, it also makes him likable.  His life might have ups and downs, but there’s a nobility in putting the needs of others before yourself.

Yet the Peter Parker on Spectacular doesn’t fall into sadsack territory.  He doesn’t mope that his life is tough.  He bears the weight of his responsibility with dignity and self-respect.  It’s not an easy path, but he walks it because he’s a good person who sees the good he can do.  This is sophisticated stuff.  This is great stuff.  This is stuff that makes me like Spider-Man.  And that’s no easy feat.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

I recently started a Twitter mini-debate with a friend of mine.*   Watching a preview for the new Kick-Ass movie, I remarked how the movie straddles a clumsy line between superheroes and realism.  This has always been a tricky prospect.  Some elements of fantasy are closer to reality than others, and superheroes are about as far from reality as one can get.

I haven’t read the original mini-series this movie is based on, but the premise is an exploration of what would happen if people in the real world tried superheroics.  This could be interesting.  Although it seems like the story would be really, really short.  Person in funny costume leaps out at bank robbers.  Bank robbers shoot costumed person.  The end.

However, the premise is destroyed for me the moment Hit-Girl, a small child, is able to kill a whole room of thugs and killers all by herself.  This might even be possible under the right circumstances, but Hit-Girl is able to dodge bullets, reload guns by throwing clips in the air and slamming her pistols into these spinning clips, able to kick a grown man across a room, and cut off limbs with a sword.

None of this is realistic.  All of this dwells firmly in the realm of the absurd.  For all practical intent, Hit-Girl isn’t a parody of superheroes.  She’s not a deconstruction of the superheroic fantasy.  She’s not even really a tongue-in-cheek joke about superheroes.  She’s just a superhero.

Kick-Ass seems even less realistic than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  At least those films go out of their way to justify Bruce Wayne’s training and equipment.  These aren’t realistic films by any stretch of the imagination, but at least by giving Batman a technological edge and an elaborate backstory, they’ve designed a fantastic justification for why Batman is Batman.

But Hit-Girl is just a little girl who has been trained to kill people.  And while I do believe it wouldn’t be that hard to train a young girl to shoot people, I think teaching anyone to dodge bullets in a firefight would qualify as a superpower in itself.

Realism is absurd in this context.  Once a character, any character in any story, is able to dodge bullets, you are dealing with fantasy.  If you don’t believe me, then try an experiment.  Have five or six friends stand around you with Nerf guns in a small room.  Then have them all shoot at you.  Can you dodge all those slow moving, readily visible projectiles?  Of course you can’t.  And that’s giant foam darts, not speeding, invisible bullets.

Also, swords don’t just slice through flesh-and-bone like Play-Do.  I know that Kill Bill helped to cement this in our pop culture perceptions, but even that film took the time to justify it by giving our heroine a special sword, her own personal Excalibur.

None of this is meant as a criticism of Kick-Ass as an off-beat action adventure film.  But it is a criticism of the realism of Kick-Ass.  And anyone who suggests that Kick-Ass is realistic has no weight with me.

Realism in fantasy films is one thing.  But what about realism in other mediums?  How about video games?

A big game right now is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  It’s a first-person shooter that involves running across the globe, fighting terrorists and other bad guys.  While certainly on the surface, this game is more realistic than Super Mario Galaxy or Pokemon, in the end it isn’t very realistic at all.  Because a realistic FPS would involve the player running around in a panicked state, trying to keep cool in a sea of chaos.  And when you were shot, you’d die.  End of story.  Admittedly, getting shot doesn’t always kill you instantly.  So the game could choose to have your character lay helplessly on the ground for a few minutes until either you expired or someone came along and carried you off to the infirmary.

Or you could be captured and thrown in a cell for years.  Doesn’t that sound like fun?

A life bar or health meter makes a game fun, but it doesn’t smack of realism.  When was the last time you were punched in the face and said, “Thank the Mighty Robot King that my health bar was full!  Now if I can just find a health pack and a power up.”

Now Mario is, in the spectrum of things, more unrealistic.  Realism is probably the last thing the designers of Mario games worry about.  As I play Super Mario Galaxy, I don’t try to make much sense of it.  Why does a big, evil turtle have an obsession with kidnapping princesses?  Why does he emply an army of turtles, mushrooms, skeleton turtles, ghosts, and walking bombs?  Why do I climb a giant toy robot in one level, fight a flower monster in another, and turn into a bee in another?  Who knows?  Who cares?  It’s Mario.  That’s just the way Mario works.

I’m not suggesting that Mario is a better game than Call of Duty.  I like Mario better, but that probably has less to do with the quality of the game and more to do with my old school platformer roots.  And I do enjoy weirdness for weirdness’s sake.  I have no reason to believe that Call of Duty isn’t a solid game in its genre.  But is it realistic?  No, it just ain’t.  It’s only realistic in comparison to something that is less realistic, and it’s hard to find things less realistic than a chubby (yet surprisingly athletic) Italian plumber who explores the universe, collecting stars, fighting the minions of a giant, fire-breathing turtle to rescue a princess.

Kick-Ass will undoubtedly be more realistic than much superheroic fantasy.  The costumes alone demonstrate this, and the fact that many of our characters are clumsy wannabees with illusions of grandeur is more realistic than many comic book universes, where it often appears as if just putting on a costume makes you capable of fighting crime.  But characters like Big Daddy and Hit-Girl are cut from the superhero cloth.  They do swear, but a lot of modern comic book heroes do that.  They do kill people, but a lot of modern comic book heroes do that.   They’re thinly disguised psychopaths, but a lot of modern comic book heroes are that, too.   

(When will we get tired of retelling Moore’s Watchmen?  Or at least when will we stop acting like retelling the story is edgy or original?  Just wondering on that one.)

There’s very little, if anything, to distinguish these characters from your garden variety superhero.  And that’s not a problem for me.  I like superheroes.  I like superheroics.  And Kick-Ass looks like it could be a fun, surreal, dark comedy adventure.  I’ll probably even see it though I’m not a fan of Millar in general.  I could launch into a rant about the ridiculous nonsense that was “Old Man Logan”, but that’s another blog post entirely and one most people wouldn’t give a damn about.

(Long story short: Old Man Logan was a very dumb Wolverine story.)

There’s nothing wrong with surrealism.  There’s nothing wrong with realism.  Both are valid styles.  But don’t try wrapping surrealism in a realism package.  Because that’s just silly.  It makes realism look bad.  It makes surrealism look bad.  And it’s just unnecessary.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

*My friend-in-question is Russell C. Connor.  He’s a good guy, and he has a couple of books available on Amazon.  There’s a plug for you, Russ, because I’m cool like that.

I don’t know if my regular readers have noticed this or not, but I tend to spend an unusual amount of time bemoaning the quality of modern comic books.  A big part of this, I’ll admit, is simply coming from a different era.  Everybody tends to like things they grew up with more than is reasonable.  But it’s also because comics are kind of lame now.

Let’s be fair though.  When I complain about modern comics, I’m actually complaining about modern superhero comics because those are what I like.  Those are what I prefer to read.  There are some great non-superhero comics out there, but, honestly, I’m just not interested most of the time in these.  I hear the accolades for Fables, The Walking Dead, 100 Bullets, etc, and while I don’t dislike them, I find nothing particularly appealing about them.  Nope.  For better or worse, when I think of comics, I think of superheroes.

And when I think of superheroes, I think in broad terms.  Good versus evil.  Surreal.  Melodramatic.  Inventive.  (Things I prefer not to think of but tend to pop up:  zombies, morality plays, rape.  But I digress.)  While there’s no reason for a lack of subtlety, there’s also nothing wrong with remembering that these are stories about people in strange costumes fighting other people in strange costumes, usually employing bizarre powers and signature gimmicks.  And, yes, Batman fans.  This applies just as much to your vaunted “realistic” superhero as anyone.  Unless you happen to know of any clowns in purple tuxedos who have access to a gas that makes you laugh until you die with a permanent smile left on your face.

But enough of my redundant, overstated comic book criticism.  Let’s actually get to the review.

REVIEW BEGINS HERE:

Green Lantern: First Flight is a terrific animated film.  While it is indeed a bit bloodier and grittier than I generally prefer, it never panders and always entertains.  I am not a Green Lantern fan.  I like the idea, like his powers.  But in comics, I just haven’t read a Green Lantern story that thrilled me.  But First Flight makes me realize that he can be awesome.

Superhero stories should be defined by action.  Anyone who says otherwise has no truck with me.  Superheroes and supervillains are not about talking.  They’re about leaping into adventure and kicking butt.  First Flight soars on this level.  The action is fantastic, thrilling, inventive, and just plain cool.  Green Lantern is one of those characters that thrives with clever writing.  And when you watch Hal Jordan pound a giant orb of death with an even more giant glowling green baseball bat, you know you’re watching something incredible.

Of course, writing is important.  It’s not just about punching bad guys in the face.  The writing in First Flight is rock solid.  The story isn’t groundbreaking, but it doesn’t need to be.  Too often, “subtle” writing is just a code word for “overly complicated” and “dull”.  But First Flight manages to keep its story going while investing in its characters and world.  Sinestro is a bizarrely sympathetic, ruthless, and classic villain.  (He’s like Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda in that way.)  You aren’t going to like Sinestro, but you are going to respect him.  And when he is finally defeated (hope that’s not giving anything away that the bad guy loses), you are glad to see him get his just desserts.

Can I also take a moment here to mention how fantastic the animation is in this movie?  It is unbelievable.  From the body language and character design to the thrilling action sequences and quiet moments.  This is quality from top to bottom.

Also, Kilowog is in this, and Kilowog will always be the best Green Lantern in my universe.  (P.S. If you’re ever looking for someone to write a Kilowog min-series, DC, you know where to find me.)

First Flight is a solid sci fi superhero adventure.  If you’re not familiar with Green Lantern, you don’t need to be.  And if you are a Lantern fan . . . well . . . hard to say there.  I’ve heard some fans complain about the film, and I’m not one myself (as previously noted) so that’s a toss up.

Listen, I think we can all agree that I’m a great writer and therefore, must have great taste.  So check out Green Lantern: First Flight.  Watch space cops with magic rings fight evil alien crime lords for the fate of the universe.  And if that doesn’t sound cool to you . . . I gotta say we live in very different worlds.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

I had a couple of good suggestions.  My favorite was “Grandma Takes Rainbow Kitty to the Dentist”, but that is far too complex a subject for me to just write a spur of the moment blog about.

Someone suggested Heroscape, but I’m just not sure what else there is to say about Heroscape except that it is as awesome as Teddy Roosevelt and Grimlock combined into one super duper, evil crushing force.  So topic covered.

Another was It’s Shredding Time.  I’ll admit I’m not even sure what this might be about.  Shredded wheat?  Ninja turtle villains?  Surfing?  Paperwork disposal?  No, far too inclusive a topic.  So let’s move on.

Then finally someone suggested The 7 LAST Superheroes I Would Like to See at the Movies.  And since I ruled out all the others, I guess this is the winner.

However, this isn’t an easy subject.  To begin with, I’m not a big fan of superhero movies in general.  There are some great ones, no doubt.  But superheroes really are designed to exist in a comic book medium.  Outside of a comic book, there’s no reason to dress up in a distinctive costume and fight crime.  It usually looks silly.  The exceptions I feel are the characters whose costume is their power.  Iron Man was a pretty cool film, and Tony Stark’s armor is a functional weapon that he just happens to wear.  Bruce Banner literally explodes into a giant green raging monster, which is absurd but at least it makes sense why he looks like that.  Even Hellboy is a monster in or out of clothes.

But Spider-Man?  Spider-Man just looks dumb in real life.  There’s no reason for Peter Parker to adopt his distinctive costume.  A ski mask and a plain unitard would work just as well.  Batman deliberately crafted his costume to strike terror into villains, but Spidey?  Spidey is a big red and blue target.  But maybe that’s because Peter Parker loves to sew and is just happy for the outlet.

But we’re getting off track, aren’t we?  Funny how that happens.  So, without further ado, let’s lay down the 7 superheroes (in random order) I do NOT want to see on the silver screen.

DEADPOOL

I know that a while ago, I posted how I wanted to see Deadpool get his own animated movie.  So why am I contradicting myself now?  Simple, really.  I want Deadpool to have his own movie, but if it’s not animated, my enthusiasm vanishes like a butterfly on the winds of hope.  (Oh, poetic.)

Everything I said about superheroes looking bad outside of comic books applies to Deadpool, triple-strength!  The guy is a walking scab.  No matter how you try to work it, there’s no way around that.  Other than to ignore that about him, which they most probably will.  But without the walking scab problem, he’s just another regenerating hero who kills people.  A big part of why it sucks to be Deadpool is because of his deformity.  He’s like the Thing, except the Thing gets to be a cool rock monster and Deadpool gets to be . . . a scab.  (The next time Peter Parker whines about getting to lift 10 tons and stick to walls, someone should remind him that he gets to take his mask off at the end of the day.)

Plus, Deadpool is funny.  Spider-Man funny.  And we’ve already seen how that works out in cinema.  Spidey said maybe four funny bits of dialogue in the entire Spider-Man movie franchise.  And that’s because it’s a lot easier to cram clever dialogue into static panels that depict dynamic action scenes than in actual live action scenes.  Because in comic books, it’s perfectly acceptable for characters to deliver thoughtful exchanges while throwing punches.  Film. . . not so much.  Animation is more fluid, more flexible.  It can get away with this a little more.  Still, Deadpool would suffer somewhat from any real-time method of portraying him.

Finally, since Deadpool is supposed to be funny, I would worry about someone writing him as funny.  Humor is subjective, and there’s a lot of chances to screw it up.  And the only thing worse than not funny Deadpool would be failing funny Deadpool.

So for all these reasons, Deadpool is a character I would never want to see in a (live-action) movie.

SUPERMAN

What’s that?  Superman has already had a movie.  Several of them, in fact?  Yep.  And they’ve mostly sucked.

Superman is the definition of a larger-than-life hero.  He is nothing less than a titan among terrans.  If the guys who made Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, or any other disaster movie could really go nuts with Superman, it could be amazing.  They could throw a real challenge his way.  Because unless Superman is fighting a giant robot from space or trying to keep the earth from spinning into the sun, you’re just wasting his (and our) time.

Because nobody respects Superman for his strengths and wants to re-invent him out of some misguided desire to “humanize” him, I would very much like it if Superman stays in comics and cartoons and off the silver screen.

CABLE

Cable is dumb.  I’d actually like it if he wasn’t in comic books at all, but for cryin’ out loud, let it end there!

Wow.  Seven sure is a large number.  Starting to lose steam here, but I carry on.  Because I care.

GAMBIT

It’s not that Gambit is a bad character.  He’s just so easy to screw up.  He was an irritating Cajun “Tarzan” in the X-Men cartoon.  And the Wolverine movie didn’t have a clue how to handle him.  (After watching that movie, I dare you to find a non-comic book fan who could explain what Gambit’s power is.  Heck, after watching it, I’m not sure I understand it anymore either.  Yes, it’s retrograde confusion, which, if I recall correctly, is a 10th level magic-user spell.  Or it should be.)

Gambit is a daring rogue, a thief, a “bad boy”.  Although really, he’s not.  Even in the world of comic books, he’s never cemented his “dangerous” reputation.  So until they get the character right in comics, they don’t need to try foisting him on the big screen.

PRETTY MUCH EVERY IMAGE HERO

Image characters should stay in the 90′s, where they belong.  Which why I’m proposing the invention of a time barrier that will prevent all the shoulderpad, giant-gun-carrying, chain accessorizing bad ideas of the past from infecting the future.

WONDER WOMAN

I like Wonder Woman as a character (or at least I want to), but her costume is a great example of something that was never meant to be portrayed in real life.  Linda Carter may have been hot, but she certainly never struck fear into cowardly and superstitious evil-doers.  Outside of comic books and fetish porn, it’s a liability.

Changing the costume is possible, but that’s just going to give the movie producers an excuse to start monkeying around with the entire concept.  And before you know it, she’ll be a genetically modified cyborg from the future with the ability to sprout claws from her knuckles who was raised by female ninjas to defend the earth from space dinosaurs.

Okay, that does sound awesome, actually.  But that’s not what’s going to happen, so let’s just move on.

POWER PACK

Young kids with superpowers who fight evil aliens.  While the comic books are actually pretty good at exploring what it might be like to be superheroes and kids, charming and subtle, thoughtful and daring.  Naturally, Power Pack has always had a hard time finding an audience in the comic book world because they’re not teens and they’re not angsty and kids dealing with responsibility and absurdity in a strange and intelligent manner is always going to be a tough sell, no matter where you try it.

Who thought that would play anywhere?

Nevertheless, Power Pack keeps plugging away.  Their ongoing series may no longer be, but they still show up every so often.  And usually they’re pretty cool.

Now that Disney owns Marvel, Power Pack WILL get their own movie.  There’s no way around that.  They’ll probably be aged up and saddled with a “be yourself!” message (and a toy line and an endless marketing assault).  Heck, they might just get a talking monkey and be in a band.  The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus are Power Pack!

Shudder.

And on that note, I flee into the night, shrieking in silent madness.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

Oh, I believe comic books (and superheroes) will be around for a while.  And, yes, I know that comic books aren’t strictly about superheroes, but let’s be honest, it’s what they’re most famous for at this point and it’s probably what they’ll stay famous for.  Road to Perdition and A History of Violence may have both been based on graphic novels, but neither seemed enthusiastic to advertise that.  No, to the general public, comic books are about superheroes, and there’s just no way around that.

Ironically, I’m not even sure how many comic book writers right now actually care about the superhero genre in the first place.  Most comic books I pick up are talky, dull affairs about people who just happen to have super powers.  It’s almost as if most the writers who grew up reading comics loved the medium but don’t really like superheroes.  But if you want to make a living writing comics, odds are good that you’ll be writing something with superheroes in it.

But I’m getting off topic.  (Funny how often that happens when I write about this stuff, isn’t it?)

The problem with comic books, the inescapable dilemma they’re facing, is how the hell do you write a comic book that appeals to fans and non-fans at the same time?  As of yet, nobody has really figured out how to do it.

I make no bones about it that fannish devotion to previous continuity in comic book universes is killing the comic book.  Most non-fans would have a hell of a time picking up any random comic book, even one featuring mainstream heroes, and knowing what the hell is going on.  And that’s just too bad because while the fans may love spending hours researching the backstory of 12,ooo characters to make sense of a story that takes two or three years (and several hundred issues and several hundred dollars) to unfold, your average reader probably isn’t willing to invest the same amount of effort.  And who can really blame them?

Yet the fans are the only thing keeping comic books afloat right now.  The die hards who read anything with Wolverine or Spider-Man in it are where most of the money is.  But these popular characters also come with a lot of baggage that most fans want to see exploited.  A straight-forward story where Batman tracks down some bankrobbers is just not going to appeal to them.  No, they want to see Night Wing and Robin and the Joker.  And they want Night Wing and Robin to have a clever exchange of dialogue that refers to something that happened “a few years ago” in comic book time, but is probably more like 15 years ago in reality time.  Leave those out, and they’re disatisfied.  And they’ll let you know.

The problem is that these devoted fans are strangling the life out of the very thing they love.

And yet, non-fans are not that interested in comic books because comic books are not a mainstream thing.  Comic book heroes may be mainstream, but comic books themselves are still a specialty product sold in special outlet stores that, while not always hostile to non-fans, are rarely very welcoming.  I still visit my comic book store and it’s not unusual to get a feeling like you’re an outsider.  Not because anyone treats you as such, but just because everyone seems to know so much more than you.  It’s like being a rocket scientist in a room full of anthropologists.  You may know you’re smart, but you also can’t help but feel like you’re missing out on a lot of the subtleties of the conversation.

DC’S BLACKEST NIGHT is the latest fan service event about an army of evil undead black lanterns who rise from their graves to do something evil.  I’m not going to lie to you.  It’s pretty terrible.  Fans will love it, of course.  Because the thing is filled with all these fan moments.  Also, I’m not so sure that many fans of comic books actually like superheroes either.  They’d much rather read a zombie book with superheroes pasted into it.  But that’s just me being grouchy, so ignore that.

But let’s take Blackest Night for what it is.  It’s a comic devoted to pleasing fans, and it probably does a good job of that.  While non-fans will find themselves confused by the long-winded conversation between Green Lantern and Flash about their complicated pasts and then utterly unimpressed by the appearance of Zombie Martian Manhunter, fans will eat this up.  When Zombie Elongated Man and Zombie Sue Dibney confront Hawkman and Hawkgirl, most fans’ eyes will glimmer with sinister glee and most non-fans will wonder who the hell any of these characters are.

Blackest Night #1 is all set up.  If you’re already invested in these characters and this universe, it’s not bad.  But what if you’re not?  This is the problem.  This is the gnawing catch-22 that is slowly eating comic books alive.

How the hell do you make a comic book that is full of in-references and beloved fan characters (both famous and obscure) that doesn’t alienate non-fans?  Or, vice versa, how do you write a comic book full of action, adventure, and accessibility that will keep hardcore fans interested?

Though I’ve always considered myself a comic book fan, I have discovered that, in truth, I’m not.  Because even though I get many of the references in Blackest Night, even though I understand much of the backstory and am familiar with the characters, I couldn’t give a damn.  I just don’t care.  I suppose I’m trapped in some strange twilight realm between fan and non-fan.  I know enough to follow what’s going on, but I’m not invested enough to give a crap.  I know that having Zombie Martian Manhunter coming after Green Lantern and Flash is supposed to be a crowning moment of cool.  But instead, it just comes off as fan service, as pandering.  Like World War Hulk (“Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if the Hulk beat up everybody!”) or Civil War (“Hey, wouldn’t it be neat if half the superheroes started fighting with the other half!”) I find the entire thing laughably ill-conceived.  But, hey, I’m not a fan.  I’m just some guy who likes comics.  And it turns out there’s a world of difference between the two.

Another interesting experiment from DC is WEDNESDAY COMICS.  This throwback to Sunday comic weeklies is a nifty idea.  And I’ll admit that so far it’s been endearing and fun.  But who is going to buy this?  Who is going to spend $4 to buy a weekly comic featuring continuing stories printed in a page-a-week format?  The art is great.  The nostalgia is nice.  The stories are developing quite nicely.  But is a non-fan going to pick this up?

And even if they did, what would they find?  Comics that are decidedly retro.  Characters that are in stories nothing like you’d actually read if you picked up a comic.  The Green Lantern strip doesn’t have a single zombie, swear word, or long, drawn out exchange of history referencing dialogue.  The Batman strip is a noirish crime thriller with nary a supporting cast member shown (outside of Commissioner Gordon so far).  The Kamandi strip is just awesome, a great tribute to Prince Valiant, but who is going to become a Kamandi fan from reading it?  And, even if they did, where the hell are they going to find a Kamandi comic book on the shelves?

Nowhere.  That’s where.

Wednesday Comics is intentionally old school.  There’s no blood, no gore.  No attempts at edginess.  Even the Batman strip, the most brooding and dark of the offerings, is surprisingly low-key and subtle.  Maybe somebody will get tortured to death by a power drill at some point, but for now, all its violence is implied, not painted in graphic reds and blacks across the panels.

And I still can’t really figure out who it’s for.  I really like it, but, as stated previously, I am not a fan.  Comic book writers long ago gave up on casual readers.

MARVEL DIVAS is a new series that is an attempt to reach out to a female audience.  Despite having “Divas” in the title (The Mighty Robot King has placed that term in his To Be Reviled Index), it’s not a bad book.  But, again, it’s filled with in-references and fan service.  The cover features our four heroines decked out in sexy superhero attire, but the interior hardly shows them in costume at all.  So if Marvel Divas isn’t really a superhero book (and as far as I can tell it isn’t, anymore than Blackest Night is a superhero book) then why not just admit this and put the ladies in non-superhero attire on the cover?  It’s not as if any of these characters are recognizable icons.  I know Hellcat.  Heck, I even like Hellcat.  But what casual reader is going to walk by a comic book shop, spot Hellcat in the window, and say, “Hey, I want that comic because clearly, it’s a comic about four women (with incidental superpowers) who sit around and talk about dating, fashion, and cancer!”

Quote Will Ferrell:  “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.”

So now I realize I’ve written a whole hell of a lot about a problem that is obvious to most comic book fans and completely irrelevant to everyone else.  And that just shows how big this problem is.  As much as I want to shake Marvel and DC and scream, “Stop with the gimmicks!  Just write a good, accessible story!” I also know that they’re doing the only thing they can think of.

Is it short-sighted?  I think so, but trying anything else is risky.  It’s hard to gamble when the long term gains may never come.

But, bringing this around to me, I have to say this is why I find myself reluctant to start a series.  Because this is the inevitable result.  Inevitably, you become a devoted servant of fan service and not storytelling.  Not to suggest that many series haven’t managed to do both at the same time, but it’s not easy.  And comic books lost that battle a long time ago.

Will they recover?  Hard to say.  I’d say no, but that’s just the cynic in me.  Plus, it’s pretty damned late, and I should’ve been in bed a while ago.  Why the hell do I start these blog entries just before bed time?

So I leave you with a long rant that observes a problem that many others before me have already observed, and I offer no solution.  Sorry to have wasted your time, gang.  Try not to hold it against me.

All I really know about comic books is that more stories should feature Blue Beetle and Squirrel Girl.  And if DC and Marvel ever feel like doing another inter-company crossover, I’d pay good money to write a Blue Beetle / Squirrel Girl one-shot.  That’s right!  I’d pay you, guys! 

Just putting that out there.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

Lee

So I have opinions, and, yes, I’m mildly famous.  Yes, I am a world-renowned novelologist.  And, yes, I have a solid gold robot butler and a machine that can create eclipses (solar and lunar) that I keep in a box under my bed.  But does this mean that my opinions are more valid than your Average Joe’s?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

(Okay, probably not.  But this is the internet age, and one of the cool things about that is every nitwit and numbskull with access to a computer can post his random thoughts onto the cosmic ether and pretend like it’s NOT an exercise in self-indulgence.  Anyway, I’m a writer, right?  I’m supposed to write.  And I try to make a habit of posting on this site to keep people coming back because that’s what you’re supposed to do.  Although if you want to just skip this stuff and just buy my books, I don’t mind.  Really, I don’t.)

And, so, I introduce a new semi-regular feature (meaning whenever the hell I need to post something and have nothing else on my mind).  It’s called “OVERRATED / UNDERRATED”.  And if you can’t figure out the premise from the title alone then keep reading.  You’ll figure it out.

VIDEO GAMES

HALO is OVERRATED: Admission.  I haven’t really played Halo.  Just a little bit here and there, a few minutes.  Enough to know that Halo is a fun game, but also, that it’s a first person shooter, a genre that I never really got.  Maybe I’m just old school but every FPS seems to revolve around centering your camera on something you want to shoot and then pressing a button until it dies.  Repeat until you finish the game.  But, honestly, couldn’t something similar be said for nearly any video game?

Still, Halo is not the Holy Grail of video games.  It’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread.  It’s just a solid FPS with a lot of hype behind it.  Master Chief is not a compelling character.  The guy is just a generic suit of space armor and, as someone somewhere once observed, his character in the game is little more than a hand holding a gun.  While I’ve heard that the multiplayer aspect of the game can be fun (and I’m sure it is) this is still just a generic sci-fi shooter with a generic badass hero and a generic alien menace.  None of which means the game is bad, but all of which means that it’s still not breaking any new ground.  It’s not bad.  It’s just overrated.

RATCHET AND CLANK is UNDERRATED: And when I say underrated, I don’t mean unappreciated.  Heck, this has produced a long line of sequels and obviously they’re still selling because a new one is being released sometime in the future.  And that’s because Ratchet and Clank kicks butt.  This is one of those games that doesn’t get nearly as much respect as it deserves because a certain segment of “hardcore” gamers can’t stand anything too cartoony or colorful or with a sense of humor.

And that’s what makes the Ratchet and Clank series shine.  Where Master Chief is just an interchangeable hand with a gun in it, Ratchet and Clank are genuine characters.  Where Master Chief faces placeholder aliens with vague motivations that are entirely incidental, Ratchet faces colorful villains.  Where Halo in every bit of advertising I’ve ever seen makes this game seem like I’m actually being drafted for an actual intergalactic war, Ratchet and Clank knows it’s a game.  And it doesn’t hide from that.

Ratchet and Clank is about blowing stuff up and taking names and running around levels, fighting toony robots and alien henchmen.  And weapons.  Lots and lots of weapons.  The carnage unleashed in Ratchet and Clank would be horrifying if it weren’t so gosh-darned charming.  And the characters?  By the Matrix of Leadership, I love the characters.  Every one of them is full of life.  Even the most minor supporting character seems more fully realized and three-dimensional than anything I’ve ever seen from Halo.

Look.  I like Ratchet and Clank.  I like the games.  I like the look.  I like the characters.  And if that keeps me from being hardcore, I guess I’ll have to live with it.

MOVIES

THE DARK KNIGHT is OVERRATED: Yeah, I’ve covered this before, but since a lot of data previously posted was deleted recently, I’d really like to restate, for the record, how dumb and annoying this film is.  It’s stuff like this that fuels the hate in my love/hate relationship with Batman.  Because there are so many writers, well-intentioned or not, who think that if you don’t make a Batman story that’s ultra-serious and ultra-dark that it isn’t Batman.  But that usually misses the point of the whole superhero genre in general, which, no matter how dark and grim you want to make it, is still about people in funny costumes beating each up.  I could go over the film’s many sins in detail, but why bother?  If you loved The Dark Knight, you’ll just disagree.  And if you agree, why preach to the choir?

Okay, maybe a little preaching.

The Joker is an all-powerful psychic with an ability to predict what everyone everywhere will do at all times in all situations.  Batman doesn’t seem to be much of a detective, instead resorting to a sci-fi gimmick so outlandish, it pretty much destroys every semblance of “realism” the film works so hard to establish.  The fall of Harvey Dent / Two-Face is contrived, even for comic book melodrama.  And about half the scenes end before they’re really over.  Oh, and the final sacrifice Batman must make, it’s not only stupid.  It’s downright insulting to all of us as human beings.  (Message: People don’t need to know things.  The best thing you can do to protect people is to keep information from them.  It’s not taking away people’s rights to make informed decisions, good or bad.  It’s being “heroic!”)

Now none of that probably matters to most people, but I can still prove that this movie doesn’t “get” Batman.  And nobody in their right mind can disagree with me.  It’s all about the dogs.  In an early scene in the movie, Batman is attacked by dogs, and it’s a bit  of trouble for him.  I can buy that.  He hasn’t been Batman long.  He can’t prepare for everything.  The first time someone pulled kryptonite on Superman, I bet he was taken by surprise too.

But the second time in the same movie Batman is attacked by dogs, he has just as much trouble.  And that’s just absurd.  That’s just stupid.  Because I guarantee you that if Batman was attacked by dogs, he’d go home and build a gadget or read a book on handling dogs.  He’d do something.  He’d be prepared because, y’know, that’s just kind of logical.  Otherwise, every criminal in the city is going to just figure out to have dogs with him and Batman would stop being scary pretty damn quick.

“Boss, Batman is here.”

“Again?  Release the hounds.”

Think it’s a nitpick?  Maybe.  But I do know that I’d be more forgiving of the film’s many flaws if it at least had the sense to make Batman smart enough to prepare for a second dog attack in the same damn movie.

TRANSFORMERS is UNDERRATED: Yes, I’m saying it.  Kind of weird, I know.  Considering it made millions of dollars at the box office, and that the sequel seems to have done pretty well too.  But I’m going on record as saying that the first movie, while not nearly as great as it should’ve been, is also not nearly as stupid as most people think it is.  It is about shape-changing robots from outer space, and that is ridiculous.  But that’s the central premise of the film, and every sci-fi / fantasy premise is ridiculous.  That’s the central conceit of sci-fi / fantasy.  Lord of the Rings might be “high fantasy” or “allegory” or whatever you want to call it, but it’s basically a story about an evil wizard with an army of monsters who chases little people around a make-believe world in search of an all-powerful knick knack.  The Matrix is a video game.  That’s the entire premise of the movie, for crying out loud.  Neo is really, really, really good at video games.  That’s his superpower.  So don’t tell me that space robots are too stupid to take seriously, because you’ve pretty much destroyed the sci-fi genre, and since that’s where I make my bread and butter, I’m not going to knock it.  Plus, most of my stories are at least as stupid in principle as shape-shifting space robots, and I’d like to think they have something worthwhile going on beneath the sci fi / fantasy nutiness.

Of course, it’s not the robots that hold Transformers back.  It’s Michael Bay because bashing Michael Bay is fun.  Heck, even Michael Bay does it.  And then he goes home and laughs and laughs and laughs on his giant piles of money.  It’s true that Bay is not a master storyteller.  It’s true that he does enjoy explosions more than is healthy.  Maybe.  Not quite convinced of that myself, but it’s possible.  But if there’s anyone who should be making a giant robot spectacle, Michael Bay would be among my first choices.

By the way, nothing I’m going to say in Transformers’ defense actually applies to the second movie, which is nearly everything Bay is knocked for.

But Transformers has a good story.  Not complicated.  Not difficult.  Rudimentary in its plot construction, but it gets the job done, and usually has the sense to stay out of the way.  It has good characters.  Sometimes, they step over the line into sitcom territory, but usually, they manage to stay on the right side of that line.  It has fairly good pacing.  Not perfect.  It lags in the middle, but the same could be said for The Dark Knight.  And the cinematography is too stylish, working too hard to remind us how cool this movie is supposed to be when really, it’s about giant shape-changing robots from outer space and that should be cool enough.

And they are.  While most of the Autobots don’t get much screen time (and the Decepticons even less), the film still manages to infuse them with life.  Usually it’s done in a fairly subtle way.  That’s right.  I said, subtle, and I’m sticking with it.  Because to me, subtle writing is found in creating characterization via action.  And since most of the Transformers are only defined by their actions, this is the only way to really illustrate their characters.  In particular, the action scenes really shine.  Whether it’s Ironhide charging forward like a reckless bull or Bumblebee employing robo-aikido or Bone Crusher, his cruel Decepticon nature to smash compelling him to madly (and foolishly) charge right into Optimus Prime, each character fights with his own unique characterization.  Even the military has its own style that contributes to the action.

Starscream is a favorite of mine in the film.  He employs hit and run tactics, deception, and just an all around sneakiness one would expect from the devious second-in-command of the Decepticons.  He also drops the ball on occasion too because he’s too busy watching his own back.  But that’s Starscream for you.

There are other things that keep the movie from being great, but it is not nearly as stupid or explosion-oriented as most people have decided.  Probably because it’s a Bay movie about space robots built around a line of toys.  But it is good, and that’s all I’m trying to say.

Now the second film…feel free to bash that one all you want.  I don’t think it’s terrible, but it ain’t that good, and even space robots can’t quite redeem it.  Athough Optimus does kick a lot of ass.  So that’s something at least.