Tonight I took League-Pal Matt M. out for his birthday to see "The Foot Fist Way" (it's a movie. Here's the site.)
I really liked the movie, but...
The League doesn't mention it much, but once upon a time when we were younger, thinner, full of much more youth and vigor, we were in TaeKwonDo long enough to earn a 1st degree black belt. Here's a link to the school I attended.
It was fun. And the experience is something that's very hard to relate to folks who haven't ever been involved. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to continue for a lot of reasons.
Despite being full of kids, the movie is NOT for kids. It's actually probably pretty funny if you've never taken a martial arts class before, but its really funny if you've ever been deep in the culture of martial arts schools and ever saw the slippery slope of the machismo and discipline for what it could turn into. It's really not too hard to live in some world of delusion when you have a small army of kids paying you fifty bucks a month, and a bunch of adults who literally jump when you say jump.
Anyhoo... Watching "The Foot Fist Way" was exactly like looking into a warped mirror of life at TKD. The martial arts portions of the movie are pretty much dead on to what I recall from the ITA, aside from the fact that my instructors weren't as... ah... anyway, my instructors happened to be terrifically educated and smart. But... that doesn't mean I didn't see folks just like the movie's protagonist, or many, many of the other characters in the movie (including the 13 year old kid who was tasked with running the school).
Truth to be told, it really made me miss TKD. I'd probably never been in better shape in my life, and I can't tell you what it does for your self-confidence to be able to punch through a few pieces of wood (eventually you start believing you can kick through anything... it's just a matter of the right kick).
And that sort of potentially misplaced self-confidence is exactly what the movie is about.
The movie fully embraces TKD and the stuff some folks might find a little cheesy. I don't think it plays those elements for laughs as much as it uses things like the tenets of TaeKnowDO as a counterpoint to Fred's struggles. And, again, if you've never been in TKD, then its kind of hard to understand why you'd take stuff like that seriously. But, you do.
I'll be honest... the movie was made on the cheap, and I don't know what it will lose if you see it on DVD. Especially if they include some of the commercials for the TKD school/ promo bits that were done for marketing the movie. But I liked it.
Not all of the acting is Oscar worthy, and the arc of the script probably needed some work, but its a fun movie. And, I expect, if I had a chance to watch it again it would be to memorize some of the better lines for use later.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Will Elder, RIP
Apparently I missed whatever press this got, but cartoonist Will Elder passed away in May.
Will Elder was one of the original EC comics artists who helped launch MAD. He was also responsible for Playboy cartoon strip "Little Annie Fanny".
For a quick recap, we turn to Wikipedia.
But here's an actual obit that might do him a bit more justice.
I think its safe to say that without Elder, there would be no MAD Magazine. And without MAD, The League's youth would have been a lot less... well... The League's youth.
Thanks, Will.
Will Elder was one of the original EC comics artists who helped launch MAD. He was also responsible for Playboy cartoon strip "Little Annie Fanny".
For a quick recap, we turn to Wikipedia.
But here's an actual obit that might do him a bit more justice.
I think its safe to say that without Elder, there would be no MAD Magazine. And without MAD, The League's youth would have been a lot less... well... The League's youth.
Thanks, Will.
Vote Harvey Dent
I don't know if you live in Gotham City or not, but with the election cycle heating up, its hard to miss the campaign to make Harvey Dent Gotham's newest District Attorney. I've found the ground swell of support for a man with whom I feel I share so many values to be particularly gratifying.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Final Crisis - Morrison speaks
In a Newsarama interview posted on Monday, Grant Morrison informs readers, basically, that they were better off ignoring "Countdown" and "Death of the New Gods".
For those of you keeping score, the conclusion of "Death of the New Gods" and "Countdown" not jiving with each other at all should have given you a serious moment of pause. Throw into the mix the beginning of "Final Crisis", and you have a potentially cataclysmic problem at DC Editorial.
It should come as no small surprise that Didio's pet writing team on Countdown fell down on the job. The insult, then, being the 52 issues of a series some of us picked up, and which wound up as a colossal disappointment. This is to say nothing of the embarassing outing that was "Death of the New Gods" (in which Jim Starlin proved that he had almost no ability to channel Kirby's vision for the New Gods, and/ or was just cashing a check). And, it should be mentioned, Salvation Run will now also be largely pointless and forgotten.
The long and the short of it seems to read something like this:
Unless a DC book is written by Morrison, Johns, Rucka and possibly Gail Simone, its best to just consider it ancillary and out of continuity. And that, Leaguers, is kind of messed up. Even if its sort of the sneaking suspicion DC fans should have come to by the end of 52 and the OYL year-long implosion.
In general, I think I give DC a lot of leeway. Some of that is in reaction to the Marvel Fan game of trying to blow every minor mistake DC makes into some sort of catastrophe and point to conflated issues as evidence that DC is a fraud. Much of the time, those mistakes are either inconsequential or, occasionally, not a mistake at all.
But how DC can push a series like Final Crisis, with all the hype and supporting series attached by big name writers and make the error of not including someone like Morrison in the planning process for the "countdown" to his story is, frankly, unforgiveable from an editorial standpoint.
Its sad that DC saw the fervor caused by the discrepancies between "Final Crisis", "Countdown" and "Death of the New Gods" and had to ask Morrison to answer for DC's editorial incompetence in order to try to find a way to salvage "Final Crisis" before the fire got much bigger.
I believe in continuity, but there's a lot of work that has to go into making these events work. And something as big as "the final battle between Dakseid and Orion" seems big enough (in the DCU, anyway), that it seems imperative that a company wide decree on how this was going to work should have been issued. Let alone, asking Morrison what events were going to work or NOT work with Final Crisis, if Final Crisis was intended to be the last word in big event comics from DC for a while.
I was concerned that Morrison's comments would somehow distort my vigorous defense of Final Crisis #1from last week, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not so sure I can be as kind to my "accessibility and comics" rant.
Incongruent continuity, flatly, makes comics hard to follow. It makes the stories around them tough to read, and conflicting portrayals of events are a show stopper for both long-time fans and, especially, for those new to the concepts. When you've seen the same character die 3 times in three weeks in three different ways, it leads to some serious cognitive dissonance that is going to pull you out of the story.
DC, get your mess together.
Didio not only owes his customers an apology, he owes us a solemn promise that he has seen his editorial goof for the colossal mistake that it was and that such a mistake will NOT happen again lest he will fall on his own sword. Not ask Grant Morrison to go smooth things over for him.
But, honestly, if I were Levitz, I'd be calling him on the carpet.
For the first time in a long time, I feel screwed by DC as a reader. This wasn't a case of me disagreeing with the direction of a comic. This was about a serious mistake in editorial. A clerical error that should have been spotted. And mostly it looks like Didio and whomever is closest to him is whispering to him their ideas for how they can ride on Morrison's coattails and make everyone a WINNAH!. But, by not working with the goose, their trampling all over the golden eggs on the way to the market.
For all of that, they asked readers to pu their faith in a comic that was going to supposedly effect the entire DCU (it didn't), and lead into a highly anticipated event (it didn't).
So what was "Countdown"? A cynical cash grab? A failed follow up to "52" once the success of the series became obvious? An honest attempt to build a "spine" to the DCU? An experiment that went up like the Hindenburg?
What were all those awful Countdown spin-offs?
The promise of storylines that never really happened (Why did Jimmy Olsen have to die again? And what did that have to do with the Joker?)
Countdown Arena?
the go-nowhere plot with the Monarch?
Was that really the plan with Ray Palmer from the beginning?
What was the point of Salvation Run?
Likewise, Death of the New Gods?
So, so many questions...
I'm tired of being an apologist for Didio and his cadre of incompetent creative teams. There's too much else going on at DC that works.
Batman
Detective
Robin is even okay with Dixon back
Superman
Action
All Star Superman
Green Lantern
GL Corps
Legion (now that Shooter's taken over. Go figure.)
Checkmate
Blue Beetle
Justice Society America is rock solid
Justice League America is okay when they aren't desperately tying into events
Booster Gold
All really good, solid titles. Even Simone's Wonder Woman is showing promise. Heck, even Supergirl has been on a major upswing.
I'm still highly recommending Final Crisis. I don't think its that complicated (and if you have a question, feel free to ask, and maybe I can help). But I am seriously questioning how many more DC titles I would add in the future as Morrison, Johns, Rucka, etc... leave. My days of giving titles the benefit of the doubt is coming to an end. Especially for books not written and drawn by teams I already trust.
For those of you keeping score, the conclusion of "Death of the New Gods" and "Countdown" not jiving with each other at all should have given you a serious moment of pause. Throw into the mix the beginning of "Final Crisis", and you have a potentially cataclysmic problem at DC Editorial.
It should come as no small surprise that Didio's pet writing team on Countdown fell down on the job. The insult, then, being the 52 issues of a series some of us picked up, and which wound up as a colossal disappointment. This is to say nothing of the embarassing outing that was "Death of the New Gods" (in which Jim Starlin proved that he had almost no ability to channel Kirby's vision for the New Gods, and/ or was just cashing a check). And, it should be mentioned, Salvation Run will now also be largely pointless and forgotten.
The long and the short of it seems to read something like this:
Unless a DC book is written by Morrison, Johns, Rucka and possibly Gail Simone, its best to just consider it ancillary and out of continuity. And that, Leaguers, is kind of messed up. Even if its sort of the sneaking suspicion DC fans should have come to by the end of 52 and the OYL year-long implosion.
In general, I think I give DC a lot of leeway. Some of that is in reaction to the Marvel Fan game of trying to blow every minor mistake DC makes into some sort of catastrophe and point to conflated issues as evidence that DC is a fraud. Much of the time, those mistakes are either inconsequential or, occasionally, not a mistake at all.
But how DC can push a series like Final Crisis, with all the hype and supporting series attached by big name writers and make the error of not including someone like Morrison in the planning process for the "countdown" to his story is, frankly, unforgiveable from an editorial standpoint.
Its sad that DC saw the fervor caused by the discrepancies between "Final Crisis", "Countdown" and "Death of the New Gods" and had to ask Morrison to answer for DC's editorial incompetence in order to try to find a way to salvage "Final Crisis" before the fire got much bigger.
I believe in continuity, but there's a lot of work that has to go into making these events work. And something as big as "the final battle between Dakseid and Orion" seems big enough (in the DCU, anyway), that it seems imperative that a company wide decree on how this was going to work should have been issued. Let alone, asking Morrison what events were going to work or NOT work with Final Crisis, if Final Crisis was intended to be the last word in big event comics from DC for a while.
I was concerned that Morrison's comments would somehow distort my vigorous defense of Final Crisis #1from last week, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not so sure I can be as kind to my "accessibility and comics" rant.
Incongruent continuity, flatly, makes comics hard to follow. It makes the stories around them tough to read, and conflicting portrayals of events are a show stopper for both long-time fans and, especially, for those new to the concepts. When you've seen the same character die 3 times in three weeks in three different ways, it leads to some serious cognitive dissonance that is going to pull you out of the story.
DC, get your mess together.
Didio not only owes his customers an apology, he owes us a solemn promise that he has seen his editorial goof for the colossal mistake that it was and that such a mistake will NOT happen again lest he will fall on his own sword. Not ask Grant Morrison to go smooth things over for him.
But, honestly, if I were Levitz, I'd be calling him on the carpet.
For the first time in a long time, I feel screwed by DC as a reader. This wasn't a case of me disagreeing with the direction of a comic. This was about a serious mistake in editorial. A clerical error that should have been spotted. And mostly it looks like Didio and whomever is closest to him is whispering to him their ideas for how they can ride on Morrison's coattails and make everyone a WINNAH!. But, by not working with the goose, their trampling all over the golden eggs on the way to the market.
For all of that, they asked readers to pu their faith in a comic that was going to supposedly effect the entire DCU (it didn't), and lead into a highly anticipated event (it didn't).
So what was "Countdown"? A cynical cash grab? A failed follow up to "52" once the success of the series became obvious? An honest attempt to build a "spine" to the DCU? An experiment that went up like the Hindenburg?
What were all those awful Countdown spin-offs?
The promise of storylines that never really happened (Why did Jimmy Olsen have to die again? And what did that have to do with the Joker?)
Countdown Arena?
the go-nowhere plot with the Monarch?
Was that really the plan with Ray Palmer from the beginning?
What was the point of Salvation Run?
Likewise, Death of the New Gods?
So, so many questions...
I'm tired of being an apologist for Didio and his cadre of incompetent creative teams. There's too much else going on at DC that works.
Batman
Detective
Robin is even okay with Dixon back
Superman
Action
All Star Superman
Green Lantern
GL Corps
Legion (now that Shooter's taken over. Go figure.)
Checkmate
Blue Beetle
Justice Society America is rock solid
Justice League America is okay when they aren't desperately tying into events
Booster Gold
All really good, solid titles. Even Simone's Wonder Woman is showing promise. Heck, even Supergirl has been on a major upswing.
I'm still highly recommending Final Crisis. I don't think its that complicated (and if you have a question, feel free to ask, and maybe I can help). But I am seriously questioning how many more DC titles I would add in the future as Morrison, Johns, Rucka, etc... leave. My days of giving titles the benefit of the doubt is coming to an end. Especially for books not written and drawn by teams I already trust.
NBC's "Fear Itself"
I watched the new NBC horror anthology TV show "Fear Itself" on Friday (courtesy, DVR).
Here's the NBC promo:
It had fairly high production values, and might appeal to fans of "Tales from the Crypt", low-budget horror, possibly "The Twilight Zone", etc... This is going to sound odd, but it was a bit predictable in its attempt to remain unpredictable. Partially because of the audience's knowledge that this is a horror anthology, so there are really only so many ways this is going to go.
But, being an anthology show, its not serialized television, so next week will be all new actors, directors and story. And I find that pretty appealing.
Once upon a time I was pretty into shows like "Twilight Zone" and "Amazing Stories". I appreciate the short-story as television idea, and I think the confinement of Standards and Practices for network TV forces creators into corners where they need to be creative to build suspense rather than depending on splatter-fests, a la most of today's horror.
As I get older, I'm definitely handling horror better than when I was a kid. Back then, a 50's-era B-movie about a disembodied, floating brain could send me running away from the TV in terror. But its also funny how the rules of Horror don't really change. Especially in the short-story format. It always ends with a twist ending, a la Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. Evil is rarely actually defeated. It's almost like the short story form gives the viewer the opportunity to see the futility of a struggle against the grotesque, one way or another.
I think movies and novels tend to want to give you a bit more pay-off for time invested. After all, I don't want to read a 500 page book and then have a conclusion that feels neither final nor is unsatisfying in any way.
That said, I've avoided the "Saw" movies, "Hostel," etc... like they'd give me the clap. What little I understand about those movies doesn't seem very much up my "the best horror movie ever is 'The Haunting'" take on horror. Perhaps they've begun employing a bit more of the scorched earth policy of short horror fiction.
Of course, a little of all that can go a long way. After all, audiences sort of gave up on M. Night Shyamalan in the 3rd reel of "The Village". But when you don't know...
It should be noted that "Fear Itself" was a bit on the graphic side. Or, at least, they can get away with movie level stuff on TV these days. So don't expect a Vincent Price movie, with just a trickle of blood.
3 things I didn't like:
a) I'm not really comfortable with the co-option of the phrase "Fear Itself" for the title of the show. But, kids... what do they care about history?
b) The opening was oddly reminiscent of the opening of the Fox's late-90's show "Millenium". But not really.
Millenium
Fear Itself (and its really not good theme song. actually, that theme song is ridiculous. I guess that's four things I don't like.)
(SPOILER: Also, there's a scene where a guy is alive and they sew his mouth shut. Also in the pilot for Millenium. I'm just saying...)
Also, Jason pointed out that opening sequences in horror have all had a certain sameness since "Seven".
c) And this is REALLY nitpicky, but all of the female leads in the episode "Sacrifice" are supposed to be 3 amish sisters (ie: no hair dye), but all of them have very obviously dyed blonde hair in a sort of Heather Graham-ish style. I just thought it was sort of unnecessary, and it took me out of the movie a few times.
But, you know, by and large, I thought it was good B-horror, without getting schlocky. For that, I turn you to the Sci-Fi Channel and their insistence on a new movie each week, no matter how awful (see: Never Cry Werewolf. Or, rather, don't.).
Here's the NBC promo:
It had fairly high production values, and might appeal to fans of "Tales from the Crypt", low-budget horror, possibly "The Twilight Zone", etc... This is going to sound odd, but it was a bit predictable in its attempt to remain unpredictable. Partially because of the audience's knowledge that this is a horror anthology, so there are really only so many ways this is going to go.
But, being an anthology show, its not serialized television, so next week will be all new actors, directors and story. And I find that pretty appealing.
Once upon a time I was pretty into shows like "Twilight Zone" and "Amazing Stories". I appreciate the short-story as television idea, and I think the confinement of Standards and Practices for network TV forces creators into corners where they need to be creative to build suspense rather than depending on splatter-fests, a la most of today's horror.
As I get older, I'm definitely handling horror better than when I was a kid. Back then, a 50's-era B-movie about a disembodied, floating brain could send me running away from the TV in terror. But its also funny how the rules of Horror don't really change. Especially in the short-story format. It always ends with a twist ending, a la Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. Evil is rarely actually defeated. It's almost like the short story form gives the viewer the opportunity to see the futility of a struggle against the grotesque, one way or another.
I think movies and novels tend to want to give you a bit more pay-off for time invested. After all, I don't want to read a 500 page book and then have a conclusion that feels neither final nor is unsatisfying in any way.
That said, I've avoided the "Saw" movies, "Hostel," etc... like they'd give me the clap. What little I understand about those movies doesn't seem very much up my "the best horror movie ever is 'The Haunting'" take on horror. Perhaps they've begun employing a bit more of the scorched earth policy of short horror fiction.
Of course, a little of all that can go a long way. After all, audiences sort of gave up on M. Night Shyamalan in the 3rd reel of "The Village". But when you don't know...
It should be noted that "Fear Itself" was a bit on the graphic side. Or, at least, they can get away with movie level stuff on TV these days. So don't expect a Vincent Price movie, with just a trickle of blood.
3 things I didn't like:
a) I'm not really comfortable with the co-option of the phrase "Fear Itself" for the title of the show. But, kids... what do they care about history?
b) The opening was oddly reminiscent of the opening of the Fox's late-90's show "Millenium". But not really.
Millenium
Fear Itself (and its really not good theme song. actually, that theme song is ridiculous. I guess that's four things I don't like.)
(SPOILER: Also, there's a scene where a guy is alive and they sew his mouth shut. Also in the pilot for Millenium. I'm just saying...)
Also, Jason pointed out that opening sequences in horror have all had a certain sameness since "Seven".
c) And this is REALLY nitpicky, but all of the female leads in the episode "Sacrifice" are supposed to be 3 amish sisters (ie: no hair dye), but all of them have very obviously dyed blonde hair in a sort of Heather Graham-ish style. I just thought it was sort of unnecessary, and it took me out of the movie a few times.
But, you know, by and large, I thought it was good B-horror, without getting schlocky. For that, I turn you to the Sci-Fi Channel and their insistence on a new movie each week, no matter how awful (see: Never Cry Werewolf. Or, rather, don't.).
Texas Governor's Mansion Burns
Every once in a while, Jamie will wake me up in the morning with a non-sequitur, then leaves the bedroom. This has the effect that I often am unsure if I just dreamed whatever Jamie told me, or if it actually happened. Yesterday was such an occasion.
"The Governor's Mansion burned down."
"Wha-?"
"The Governor's Mansion caught on fire and burned down. Rick Perry wasn't there."
"Huh-?"
"So nobody got hurt."
"That's good."
And then she wanders off.
At this point, usually, Lucy jumps on the bed to get attention and Jeff the Cat starts meowing at me. Every morning is a party when I wake up.
Anyhow, I sat there blinking for a minute, trying to determine if I'd just dreamed the information about the Governor's Mansion, but I hadn't. Why it seemed so impossible for the Governor's Mansion to burn down, I don't know... The building was 150 years old. The fact that it hasn't burned down before is sort of a miracle.
Here's an AP story on the blaze.
Here's the official website.
When I heard that the cause might be arson, that sort of made more sense than a random fire. There's always drunk people and crazy hobos running around downtown. Add in the tinfoil helmet crowd, or even some overzealous activist, and it could be anybody, really.
Of course, there's also a considerable fence and wall around the Mansion... and I would have guessed better security than what must have been present. But... anyway, i don't think criticizing security in this case is particularly useful as I don't know the facts.
As you've no doubt heard, fortunately the Mansion was undergoing renovations, which meant that the antiques and artifacts of the Mansion had all been moved off-site and were not lost. And, Governor Perry had been living elsewhere during the renovation, so the fire did not claim his Wii or extensive Hummel figurine collection.
I am, of course, now kicking myself for never getting off my duff and going for a tour of the mansion at any point in the past, oh, 24 years when I've lived (on and off) in Austin.
People who live in New York don't go to see the Statue of Liberty or the UN building. I doubt Parisians hang out at the Eiffel Tower on the weekends. And I don't often take advantage of the historical artifacts, museums, etc.. that Austin has to offer. Certainly losing one of the buildings sort of puts things in perspective, and is a reminder that those places shouldn't be merely taken for granted.
"The Governor's Mansion burned down."
"Wha-?"
"The Governor's Mansion caught on fire and burned down. Rick Perry wasn't there."
"Huh-?"
"So nobody got hurt."
"That's good."
And then she wanders off.
At this point, usually, Lucy jumps on the bed to get attention and Jeff the Cat starts meowing at me. Every morning is a party when I wake up.
Anyhow, I sat there blinking for a minute, trying to determine if I'd just dreamed the information about the Governor's Mansion, but I hadn't. Why it seemed so impossible for the Governor's Mansion to burn down, I don't know... The building was 150 years old. The fact that it hasn't burned down before is sort of a miracle.
Here's an AP story on the blaze.
Here's the official website.
When I heard that the cause might be arson, that sort of made more sense than a random fire. There's always drunk people and crazy hobos running around downtown. Add in the tinfoil helmet crowd, or even some overzealous activist, and it could be anybody, really.
Of course, there's also a considerable fence and wall around the Mansion... and I would have guessed better security than what must have been present. But... anyway, i don't think criticizing security in this case is particularly useful as I don't know the facts.
As you've no doubt heard, fortunately the Mansion was undergoing renovations, which meant that the antiques and artifacts of the Mansion had all been moved off-site and were not lost. And, Governor Perry had been living elsewhere during the renovation, so the fire did not claim his Wii or extensive Hummel figurine collection.
I am, of course, now kicking myself for never getting off my duff and going for a tour of the mansion at any point in the past, oh, 24 years when I've lived (on and off) in Austin.
People who live in New York don't go to see the Statue of Liberty or the UN building. I doubt Parisians hang out at the Eiffel Tower on the weekends. And I don't often take advantage of the historical artifacts, museums, etc.. that Austin has to offer. Certainly losing one of the buildings sort of puts things in perspective, and is a reminder that those places shouldn't be merely taken for granted.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
JLA Movie question
Yurgh. I'm looking over my last few posts, and if the tone is any indication, The League needs a jobby job. How seriously am I really supposed to ask you Leaguers to take this business? And yet I ramble on for 10,000 words.
That's a sure way to keep a readership. Sweet Christmas.
Anyhow, I asked for some blog topics the other day, and a few folks stepped up. Steanso sent me some ideas that, if put into place, would end in an arrest. My favorite, though, was taking Lucy to various places and see where she could get in. I would have started, of course, with the State Capitol.
Simon asked how I felt about the now-shelved George Miller directed Justice League movie. Well, Simon, I'll tell you...
That movie was going to be all kinds of terrible. And the universe can do without a terrible JLA movie. I'm not sure what sort of alternate universe much of Hollywood works in, because it just doesn't seem like it should be too hard to "get" the JLA, but everything I'd read leading up to the cancellation notice was the same sort of cockamamie nonsense I'd read regarding Superman revivals before Singer got ahold of the property (ex: Ashton Kutcher as a Superman who has a destiny to fulfill on the planet Krypton. Which, btw, has NOT exploded.).
The idea of the Miller movie was, I believe, to drop the viewer in on the JLA after the JLA was already formed, thereby consciously avoiding what could be a fascinating origin story, wrought with drama and what-have-you. Instead, we'd see an internal split within the JLA. A team which we just met... so why we were supposed to care that they were having issues, I do not know.
This inter-office politicking would, no doubt, have led to "the unnecessary super-hero fight". The super-hero fight is the fight people always THINK they want to see between superheroes, but, really, you're usually so painfully aware of the fact that its a perfunctory fight before the heroes come to terms and go after the actual threat that the whole thing always feels like a waste of pages in comics.
The Original Seven of the JLA
It should be noted that WB was not planning to use the pre-cast Bale and Routh in their respective roles as Batman and Superman for the JLA flick. Which seems it would, at best, dilute the brand WB should be promoting for their own product. And, essentially, tell the audience "we don't take any of this seriously enough to bother to cast the same actors, so don't you worry too much about it, either."
And, of course, one of my chief complaints was that it seemed a CW or reality-show casting producer had gotten ahold of the movie and was going for the Tiger Beat sort of actors. Pouty-faced young Hollywood, intended to draw in the girls, 10-17, I guess.
If Iron Man and Batman have taught us anything, its that one not only doesn't need to cast young CW network-types, but that fans react much better to adults in these roles (depending on the role. We can go young on, say... Wally West.). A little age can lend superheroes a bit of gravitas that, a show like Smallville has never been able to muster.
I don't have a particular JLA origin story in mind I want to see, but I DO KNOW that for WB to launch a franchise, they need to give the audience a starting point from which to work. And that means an origin story. Not a JLA dysfunctional-family story.
Spoilers
By the way, the rumor (and evidence from the stinger at the end of Iron Man bears this out) is that Marvel is putting out an Avengers movie in a few years. After they've established several characters in their own feature films, starting with Iron Man and continuing on with a Cap movie, etc.... The common thread seems to be Nick Fury meeting with the characters in each of these movies as they're rolled out.
I can't tell you how smart this seems. WB's plan was to put out a JLA movie, and then do spin-off's of various characters. But... if the JLA movie wasn't any good (and it didn't look like it would be) wouldn't that manage to hurt seven potential properties?
Not only does Marvel's formula give each property a chance to get in their unique origin story and set up the characters, the audience will have a built-in affinity for the characters which will make the Avengers movie a near guaranteed financial success. Narratively, the movie also won't have to waste the time necessary to introduce characters, give them some special plotline, etc...
END SPOILERS
Just think of those Rock and Roll Hall of Fame jam sessions where you see all those guys rocking out, and even some of them you don't know... and even if they're playing some song you don't like all that much, its still cool to see Elvis Costello, Sting, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and all sorts of other folks all sharing a stage. You know each of them individually pretty well, and even if you don't love, say, Tom Petty... you can maybe respect him a bit more just because he's sharing the stage with these other guys you DO like.
And, man, I think Marvel knows how to do this pretty well from their comics, so the chances of a decent movie are already pretty darn good, if they produce through the newly established Marvel Studios.
Really, what CAN'T Warner Bros. and DC learn from this?
Each of these guys could probably carry two or three movies on their own
DC would do well to begin introducing the Original 7, or at least several of the Original 7 in their own movies FIRST. They don't necessarily need a through-line like Nick Fury to pull them together. But why water down the concepts by forcing them into a JLA movie for their first appearance, and muck up what could be a pretty good feature film for that property before its ever seen the light of day?
There's a rumored Green Lantern movie in the works. Its only at the script stage, but its got pretty decent writing talent attached with Marc Guggenheim (who does movies, TV and comics). Its supposed to be a Hal Jordan origin story, which is a good sign. Supposedly they're also talking about a Green Arrow movie, but that's rumored to be based on the formerly abortive script called "SuperMax" which was about a super-villain prison. And didn't touch on GA's origin at all.
And... there have been rumors of casting for another Superman movie (for some love interest, I believe).
So... get these movies out there. Give the DCU some time to breathe. Unlike Marvel, who has seen success with Spidey and other non-Avengers, the DCU has the advantage that their big guns are now (or have at some point) been in the JLA. Whatever they build on now with their movies COULD build right into a JLA movie.
We'll see.
Two last things:
1) The failure of a single JLA movie translates to potentially killing 20 movies or so. If 3 movies could be made for each member of the JLA, plus, say, 3 JLA movies... that's a lot of movies which one failed JLA movie could potentially screw up.
Now, I live in a life pretty muddied with delusion, but I do think that we're talking about at least ten other, non-JLA movies. A few Supermans, Batmans, GL's alone come out to 9 movies. Surely a WW movie is possible. So... you do your own math.
2) If the producers are worrying about the budget for a JLA movie, they're missing the point of the JLA. The JLA is huge. But, mostly, they need to pick up some Morrison-era JLA comics to see what epic storytelling in the JLA can really mean. Or, possibly, something like Ross's "Justice", or "JLA: Liberty and Justice".
Don't think Superfriends, think "The Right Stuff". Think "Superman: The Movie" times 7.
I'm just saying.
That's a sure way to keep a readership. Sweet Christmas.
Anyhow, I asked for some blog topics the other day, and a few folks stepped up. Steanso sent me some ideas that, if put into place, would end in an arrest. My favorite, though, was taking Lucy to various places and see where she could get in. I would have started, of course, with the State Capitol.
Simon asked how I felt about the now-shelved George Miller directed Justice League movie. Well, Simon, I'll tell you...
That movie was going to be all kinds of terrible. And the universe can do without a terrible JLA movie. I'm not sure what sort of alternate universe much of Hollywood works in, because it just doesn't seem like it should be too hard to "get" the JLA, but everything I'd read leading up to the cancellation notice was the same sort of cockamamie nonsense I'd read regarding Superman revivals before Singer got ahold of the property (ex: Ashton Kutcher as a Superman who has a destiny to fulfill on the planet Krypton. Which, btw, has NOT exploded.).
The idea of the Miller movie was, I believe, to drop the viewer in on the JLA after the JLA was already formed, thereby consciously avoiding what could be a fascinating origin story, wrought with drama and what-have-you. Instead, we'd see an internal split within the JLA. A team which we just met... so why we were supposed to care that they were having issues, I do not know.
This inter-office politicking would, no doubt, have led to "the unnecessary super-hero fight". The super-hero fight is the fight people always THINK they want to see between superheroes, but, really, you're usually so painfully aware of the fact that its a perfunctory fight before the heroes come to terms and go after the actual threat that the whole thing always feels like a waste of pages in comics.
The Original Seven of the JLA
It should be noted that WB was not planning to use the pre-cast Bale and Routh in their respective roles as Batman and Superman for the JLA flick. Which seems it would, at best, dilute the brand WB should be promoting for their own product. And, essentially, tell the audience "we don't take any of this seriously enough to bother to cast the same actors, so don't you worry too much about it, either."
And, of course, one of my chief complaints was that it seemed a CW or reality-show casting producer had gotten ahold of the movie and was going for the Tiger Beat sort of actors. Pouty-faced young Hollywood, intended to draw in the girls, 10-17, I guess.
If Iron Man and Batman have taught us anything, its that one not only doesn't need to cast young CW network-types, but that fans react much better to adults in these roles (depending on the role. We can go young on, say... Wally West.). A little age can lend superheroes a bit of gravitas that, a show like Smallville has never been able to muster.
I don't have a particular JLA origin story in mind I want to see, but I DO KNOW that for WB to launch a franchise, they need to give the audience a starting point from which to work. And that means an origin story. Not a JLA dysfunctional-family story.
Spoilers
By the way, the rumor (and evidence from the stinger at the end of Iron Man bears this out) is that Marvel is putting out an Avengers movie in a few years. After they've established several characters in their own feature films, starting with Iron Man and continuing on with a Cap movie, etc.... The common thread seems to be Nick Fury meeting with the characters in each of these movies as they're rolled out.
I can't tell you how smart this seems. WB's plan was to put out a JLA movie, and then do spin-off's of various characters. But... if the JLA movie wasn't any good (and it didn't look like it would be) wouldn't that manage to hurt seven potential properties?
Not only does Marvel's formula give each property a chance to get in their unique origin story and set up the characters, the audience will have a built-in affinity for the characters which will make the Avengers movie a near guaranteed financial success. Narratively, the movie also won't have to waste the time necessary to introduce characters, give them some special plotline, etc...
END SPOILERS
Just think of those Rock and Roll Hall of Fame jam sessions where you see all those guys rocking out, and even some of them you don't know... and even if they're playing some song you don't like all that much, its still cool to see Elvis Costello, Sting, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and all sorts of other folks all sharing a stage. You know each of them individually pretty well, and even if you don't love, say, Tom Petty... you can maybe respect him a bit more just because he's sharing the stage with these other guys you DO like.
And, man, I think Marvel knows how to do this pretty well from their comics, so the chances of a decent movie are already pretty darn good, if they produce through the newly established Marvel Studios.
Really, what CAN'T Warner Bros. and DC learn from this?
Each of these guys could probably carry two or three movies on their own
DC would do well to begin introducing the Original 7, or at least several of the Original 7 in their own movies FIRST. They don't necessarily need a through-line like Nick Fury to pull them together. But why water down the concepts by forcing them into a JLA movie for their first appearance, and muck up what could be a pretty good feature film for that property before its ever seen the light of day?
There's a rumored Green Lantern movie in the works. Its only at the script stage, but its got pretty decent writing talent attached with Marc Guggenheim (who does movies, TV and comics). Its supposed to be a Hal Jordan origin story, which is a good sign. Supposedly they're also talking about a Green Arrow movie, but that's rumored to be based on the formerly abortive script called "SuperMax" which was about a super-villain prison. And didn't touch on GA's origin at all.
And... there have been rumors of casting for another Superman movie (for some love interest, I believe).
So... get these movies out there. Give the DCU some time to breathe. Unlike Marvel, who has seen success with Spidey and other non-Avengers, the DCU has the advantage that their big guns are now (or have at some point) been in the JLA. Whatever they build on now with their movies COULD build right into a JLA movie.
We'll see.
Two last things:
1) The failure of a single JLA movie translates to potentially killing 20 movies or so. If 3 movies could be made for each member of the JLA, plus, say, 3 JLA movies... that's a lot of movies which one failed JLA movie could potentially screw up.
Now, I live in a life pretty muddied with delusion, but I do think that we're talking about at least ten other, non-JLA movies. A few Supermans, Batmans, GL's alone come out to 9 movies. Surely a WW movie is possible. So... you do your own math.
2) If the producers are worrying about the budget for a JLA movie, they're missing the point of the JLA. The JLA is huge. But, mostly, they need to pick up some Morrison-era JLA comics to see what epic storytelling in the JLA can really mean. Or, possibly, something like Ross's "Justice", or "JLA: Liberty and Justice".
Don't think Superfriends, think "The Right Stuff". Think "Superman: The Movie" times 7.
I'm just saying.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)