#and i think that's really the essence of how batman villains Become iconic batman villains: being utterly ride or die for their public imag

[rollforjackass]

thank god i've come back to tumblr after all this time bc where else could i say "i've been simping for the scarecrow from batman begins lately" with impunity. anyway thank you cilian murphy for your service

[blazehedgehog]

i remember someone asking you how would you conceptualize a sonic tv show a couple of years ago and you said something about taking the core aspects of the characters and make them play out like with batman TAS. if so, what other ideas do you have about something like that?

Well, first we'd have to identify what the universal ideal of Sonic the Hedgehog is. That's what Batman TAS did -- it took every variant of Batman ever created and distilled them down into their purest essence.

So my first inclination would be to just start over and maybe retell the events of the Genesis games but with new context, but that's not what Batman did. I'm not even sure how long it took Batman TAS to retell Batman's origin story (judging by this list, maybe 26 episodes). It assumes you know who the character is and tells very simple, iconic stories regarding that universe.

So then you have to ask yourself: what does the purest essence of Sonic look like?

Is it Classic Sonic? Modern Sonic? Something in-between? The above two are Tyson Hesse sheets, and I use them because one, I like the way he draws Sonic, and two, he's kind of been the guiding force behind Sonic's appearances in 2D animation in the last decade. The boy draws a good hog.

And in that regard, I believe he drew this as his way of trying to blend Classic Sonic and Modern Sonic design sensibilities:

Short, scruffy, and a little athletic. But still identifiably the way Sonic has always looked.

Unfortunately, I think Eggman changes too much to really blend two aesthetics together -- again, we're not so much looking to create "our version of Eggman", we're looking to create The Ideal Eggman. So we could probably settle with Classic Eggman and leave it at that. It's a more simplistic design, if nothing else.

From there you just start... telling stories. Not necessarily origin stories, like I don't think we really need an episode where we see Eggman build Metal Sonic. Metal Sonic is just already there.

If you do tell an origin story, it has to be in service of focusing on a specific element of what makes that character sing. Like, I mentioned episode 26 of Batman TAS was probably where they finally touched on Batman's origin, but that's because it's an episode about Crime Alley, the place Bruce's parents were killed. It's not a story about Batman's origin.

So if we tell Metal Sonic's origin story, it has to be referenced within something else as a pillar to strengthen the story being told. It cannot be an origin story about Metal Sonic, because you have to assume the audience already knows who Metal Sonic is. Again, you're not here to show how your Metal Sonic is different, you're here to show the perfect, idealized, purest distillation of Metal Sonic. This is every Metal Sonic in one, shaven down and polished to a mirror finish.

So then, what's interesting about Metal Sonic as a character? Well, he knows, on some level, that he's Sonic. He has some awareness that he's a copy, and he both wants to make his creator (Eggman) proud and also become the one true Sonic (by incapacitating or otherwise destroying the actual Sonic). He is also a creation of Eggman, so there's some desire to subjugate and rule the world in there somewhere (to be evil, in other words).

This means we have a villain with confused goals. He is controlled but strives to break free of that control. But he still wants to be evil. Maybe for reasons he doesn't really understand.

So maybe we tell a story where Sonic's out on a run, looking for a Chaos Emerald. No particular reason, just he thought it would be a good idea to collect one or two to have on hand just in case. Make it so nobody could easily have all seven.

As he gets close to where he thinks an emerald is, he gets blindsided by Metal Sonic, and they have a fight. Sonic reaches under the cuff of his glove and pulls out a tiny communicator he uses to radio Tails with, asking if he's heard any movement from Eggman recently. Tails has not. Then why is Metal Sonic out here?

Tails has Sonic lure him close to the workshop, where Tails runs a scan on Metal.

Turns out: Metal Sonic had the same idea as Sonic. Because Metal Sonic is operating on all of Sonic's thoughts and memories (a good aside to establish here), he independently decided to go on a mission to gather up some (or all) of the Chaos Emeralds "just in case" with the idea of giving them to Eggman. Obviously both Metal and Sonic know they're doing the same thing, so there's no easy way to get Metal Sonic to just stop and go away, right?

So, Tails comes up with an idea: a fake emerald, for a fake Sonic. I don't know that we have to reference Sonic Adventure 2 here, but maybe there could be an offhand reference about how Tails has "always had the technology to synthesize a fake Chaos Emerald." The problem now is getting Metal Sonic to believe the fake emerald is real.

Maybe, for the sake of the plot, a real Chaos Emerald has to be within proximity to hide the energy signature of the fake more easily. So now we have our episode finale: Sonic has to let Metal attack him, they have to fight over the fake emerald, but oh no Tails gets dragged in, and there's a mix up. Who has the real emerald, and who has the fake?

Everyone involved knows one of the emeralds is fake, and Tails has a piece of technology that helps him identify the real one, but it's easy to get confused as to who has which one (by design, that's why there's a real Chaos Emerald here).

The episode ends with our heroes (presumably) having the real one. We see Metal Sonic return to Eggman's city (Scrap Brain Zone) and there's a POV shot where it says "Deliver Emerald To The Doctor" like a mission objective. Metal Sonic pauses for a moment, staring in to the Emerald, and we see the objective get minimized for a new one:

"Take The Untold Power For Yourself."

Metal Sonic's hand transforms, or his chest opens up, or something happens where he's going to use the emerald to power himself up. He starts to accept the emerald's energies, everything looks like it's working just fine, but there's an anomaly, the wavelengths go haywire, and the emerald explodes.

Our final shot is a severely damaged Metal Sonic limping into Doctor Eggman's lab, who is completely unaware of what just happened. He dotes on Metal, cursing what Sonic has done to him. And Metal Sonic just silently stares.

Now I'm no Bruce Timm or Paul Dini, but to me, that gestures towards the type of storytelling I think a TAS-style Sonic show would lean towards.

[fyeahbatcat]

Just finished Batman: Hush the animated movie. What are your thoughts on it?

Alright, everyone. Here we go:

Batman: Hush Movie Full review

To begin, as I’ve stated here previously, Batman: Hush is a very important story to me. It was the first Batman comic that I ever read many years ago. In the sixteen years since its original publication it has undergone at least nine different editions and is still one of the most recommended and critically praised Batman stories of the modern era. It was the starting point for many people in the Batman fandom, and I still believe that it is the most pinnacle story regarding Batman and Catwoman’s relationship. The fact that it’s still so influential, nearly twenty years later, in indicative of its importance and merit.

When DC Comics announced last summer that they were officially making Hush into an animated movie I was happy, but I cannot say that I was excited. This was due to unrelated factors that were happening simultaneous to its announcement that obliterated my faith in DC Comics as a whole. You can imagine my dismay when I learned that instead of creating a direct adaptation, in the same vein as Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and Year One, they would be changing the story to fit in with their current New 52 inspired animated universe.

As anyone whose been following me for a while may have observed; I’m highly critical. I can usually find the good and bad in something and when I’m giving my take on things from my perspective it’s pretty fair and balanced. I was fully aware that the Hush movie made changes to the story and knew going in that I would have to temper my expectations, but I still gave it a chance.

Many will say that the film should be viewed on its own merit, and I generally tend to agree. If not held up to the book the movie is watchable and very easy to enjoy. But it’s an adaptation. An adaptation of one of the best and most popular Batman stories of all time. An ambitious and operatic year long event from Jeph Loeb, and one that I personally hold in the highest regards. Completely divorcing the movie from its source material is unfeasible.

With that said; as I review this movie I will be critiquing as loosely inspiredimagination of the Batman: Hush comic, and only making comparisons to demonstrate potential compromises of the story or the characters.

***Obvious spoilers ahead***

THE GOOD AND THE BAD

After many years of begging, pleading, rumors, and teasing the Batman: Hush animated film was finally released during SDCC weekend. The basic plot remained intact: a mysterious new villain named Hush targets Batman’s crime fighting career as well as his personal life, which is further complicated by his burgeoning romance with Catwoman. While making concessions that range from minor to pivotal the movie manages to be different while maintaining a degree of familiarity. All the most iconic scenes are there in one aspect or another, with only one notable exception; the Jason Todd graveyard scene.

There’s not much to say about the general plot. It for the most part, stays true to the essence of the story, while being different in execution. Most changes were traversable, while others were pointless and baffling. The first questionable change occurs early in the movie, when Catwoman delivers the stolen money to Poison Ivy; Ivy kisses Catwoman, which she does not reciprocate. In the original script for the book, I believe, that Ivy did kiss Catwoman, but Jeph Loeb was told by editorial to remove it, because it was “too much.”

It was clear in the comic book that Ivy was using her powers to mind-control Catwoman. In that context kissing her would have made more sense. In the movie the extent of her influence over Catwoman is unclear. It appears that she is blackmailing Catwoman. Catwoman’s coldness and irritation afterwards implies that she has maintained some degree of self-awareness. Her use of coercion rather than force renders the kiss pointless, and its intention to merely be salacious.

Other needless changes involve swapping out characters. Bane, for some reason, has taken the place of Killer Croc. Damian Wayne has taken the place of Tim Drake, and Amanda Waller makes a token appearance, but both proceed to only have one scene.

As Rick Austin from FortressofSolitude put it:

Some changes to the original story are surface-level questionable, making you wonder why they changed them at all – like substituting Killer Croc for Bane, for instance. Presumably it was done for recognition and name value, and barely has any relevance to the story. Huntress is replaced by Batgirl, probably for the similar reasons, but that’s more important and naturally means Oracle’s role in the story is gone. Slowly but surely, the small tweaks begin to have a big knock-on effect. Important lines of dialogue have been jettisoned, some elements have been removed and some characters replace others just to make this fit with other recent DC animated films.

The movie takes a more action/adventure route rather than a character driven mystery, chugging along at breakneck pace making several plot concessions along the way. What it does manage to improve from the book, as far as a Batman and Catwoman shipper can see, is it beefs up Batman and Catwoman’s ill-fated romance, by way of a montage depicting adorable, if at times out-of-character, domesticity that even involves matching his and hers robes. Its inclusion was more fan-servicey than plot driven, but the ship isn’t doing well right now so I’m not about to complain about that.

What I will complain about isn’t what was added to the romance, but what was excluded from it. The film cuts out all the most important scenes that demonstrate why the dynamics of Batman and Catwoman’s relationship works for them. Yes, we get the rooftop kiss that has graced a thousand screensavers and Batman ultimately making the decision to reveal his identity to Catwoman, but everything in service of Catwoman’s perspective are removed entirely.

The scene from the book when Catwoman admonishes Batman for saving her instead of going after the Joker after she is shot at the opera, is changed to Catwoman merely telling Batman to go after Harley Quinn.

If you ever choose to rescue…me again over catching the bad guy…I swear I’ll scratch your eyes out. I’m not some kid you took in and trained.

This scene is important because this is where Catwoman affirms how she sees herself in this relationship: she is Batman’s equal and she expects– demands– that he treat her as such. These changes seem benign at first, until it becomes clear later why they were made. More on that in a bit.

The original script for Hush also included a tasteful post-coital scene that was ultimately cut by editorial. The scene makes its way back into the movie in lieu of some of the more emotionally intimate moments, like Selina dialoguing with Alfred in the bat-cave. The dialogue also fails to compensate for this. Batman and Catwoman’s pillow talk topic include how Batman used to think Catwoman was a kleptomaniac.

“You were beautiful, intelligent, and brilliant,” he tells her. “I assumed if you were stealing it was because you couldn’t control it.” I see this come up in fandom every now and again, and Catwoman cannot be a kleptomaniac because kleptomania is an impulse control disorder. Catwoman steals for profit and executes elaborate premeditated heists. I can see why other people would make that mistake, but the world’s greatest detective should have more cognizance.

Most of the changes to film are surface-level and trivial, but where the movie majorly fails is when they attempt to fix things that weren’t broken to begin with.

The most major change doesn’t occur until the final act of the movie when it is revealed that Hush is actually the Riddler. At first, I thought this was a misdirect, but no. The Riddler is really Hush and Tommy Elliot was just a plot device, and he is really dead. Like in the book, Riddler gained knowledge of Batman’s identity while in the Lazarus Pit, and decides to take revenge by going after Bruce Wayne’s friends and loved ones.

This change is nonsensical and renders Tommy Elliot’s role in the movie essential meaningless. He is a mere plot device, a shamefully underdeveloped plot device, intended to provide Batman with angst. Villains targeting Batman’s loved ones is all too familiar occurrence, but audiences barely get to know Tommy long enough understand the depths of Batman’s grief and mourning.

As I’m sure all of you are aware at this point that in the book it is revealed that Hush is Tommy Elliot. Substituting Tommy for Riddler diminishes the impact of the reveal and Hush’s motivations. Tommy, Bruce’s close childhood friend, has a personal vendetta against Bruce. He uses his friendship, familiarity, and access to Bruce Wayne to attack him both personally and as Batman. It also complicates Batman’s relationship with Hush as a villain. The Riddler being Hush is just a theatrical Gotham villain pretending to be a different theatrical Gotham villain for no reason whatsoever.  

Towards the end of the movie Riddler kidnaps Catwoman and tries to kill her in an elaborate trap. Since Bruce was damseled early in the movie, I didn’t so much mind that they did the same to Catwoman. I like that Batman and Catwoman can depend on each other, and it demonstrates a degree of equality in their relationship. However, while Batman was only incidentally damseled for maybe 60 seconds, Catwoman was subtly threatened with rape for intervening on his behalf and later got the full-on woman-tied-to-railroad-tracks-treatment. Predictably Batman shows up and saves the day.

THE UGLY

Batman: Hush made several missteps that I was willing to overlook, and almost got through its entire 82-minute run time before doing the only thing that I considered truly egregious.

After the ensuing fight the building begins to collapse and Catwoman leaves Riddler to die, after Batman attempts to save him. Batman argues that they could’ve saved Riddler instead of letting him die. Catwoman becomes angry. “You’re crazy! You’re absolutely insane,” she exclaims melodramatically. Batman and Catwoman decide that their moral differences are too stark and break up, but leave the door open for the future.

This is where the movie took an unexpected turn for the worse. This is where the reason why so many changes to Catwoman’s character becomes clear.

Batman goes out as the voice of morality and looks like the hero, and Catwoman is completely thrown under the bus to make it happen.

Early in the movie during the famous battle of Metropolis when Superman is under the influence of Poison Ivy, Catwoman throws Lois Lane off a building to snap him out of the spell. Later when Superman is out of earshot Batman tells Catwoman that throwing Lois off the building was not part of the plan and that he did not approve of her methods. In the book it was Batman’s idea to throw Lois from the building. This moment frequently makes appearances on Worst-Things-Batman-Has-Ever-Done lists on comic sites.

During the opera scene Catwoman attempting to stop Batman from killing the Joker in a fit of rage was also cut. Here it was Batman who was acting morally questionable, and Catwoman was the reasonable and morally righteous one, so to speak.

These, along with Catwoman allowing Riddler to die, are intended to make Catwoman seem like she has a cursory attitude towards killing, when that couldn’t be further from the truth. All of this inevitably shifts all the blame for the relationship not working out on Catwoman. Catwoman’s flaws are irreconcilable while Batman is the blameless voice of reason. This is abominable at best, and sexist at worst.  

The book ends similarly and yet profoundly different. Upon the announcement of the film some people were hoping for the ending to be changed to something presumably happier for Bruce and Selina. In the book Batman and Catwoman break up, but under much different circumstances.

I personally feel that the ending to the original was appropriate for the story. Batman sabotages their relationship pushes Catwoman away because he realized was not ready for the vulnerability required in that type of relationship, It ends  on a bittersweet note. Batman and Catwoman can have a relationship “someday.” All they need is a little more time, and it’s Batman who need to be a little bit different.

Even as things end Loeb simply and perfectly sums up why Batman and Catwoman work:

We are who we are. That’s why this works.

The film makes fundamental differences, that can only be remedied by Catwoman changing herself, are the root of Batman and Catwoman’s relationship dysfunction.

The changes to Catwoman’s character occur only to justify the ending. The filmmakers went to great lengths to villainize Catwoman to make it seem like it was all her personal shortcomings that ended things instead of Batman’s to make him seem more heroic. It relegates Batman and Catwoman’s relationship  to a tool to demonstrate Batman’s inflexible moral code.

To add insult to injury, as Batman and Catwoman’s relationship comes to an end, Selina tells Bruce bitterly that she changed herself to be with him and was willing to continue changing. This robs Selina the agency of having reformed on her own, in a film that has already diminished much of her voice and independence.

It’s almost laughable that Selina once told Huntress that reforming was worthwhile, “as long as you’re doing it for yourself, and not for what someone else thinks of you,” in the same book the movie was based on.

Some dude (and it’s a dude; I checked) read the book, saw this panel, then decided to have her say literally the opposite. I wish I was making this up.

On its own the Batman: Hush movie is watchable. The casual viewer and batcat shippers alike can easily find something to enjoy. But watchable is a low bar to pass when based on one of the most popular Batman stories of our era. What should have been an exceptionally easy recipe for success did not exceed the bare minimum. It’s drab, bland, and dark animation style does not hold up to Jim Lee’s iconic penciling or Scott Williams’ colorful fills. The changes to the story are generally acceptable, until the final act of the movie when things go off the rails.

Ultimately the movie exceptionally fails at capturing the dynamics of Batman and Catwoman’s relationship, trading in much of the depth and intimacy for shower sex and pet names. On its own Batman: Hush stands as a mindlessly entertaining adaptation, loosely inspired by a Batman story of mystery and intrigue. Held up to the source material, it’s a pale and grotesque imitation.  

[rankakiu]

Thoughts of the Droid: Joker (2019)

Hello people from Tumblr! How have they been in all this time? As always, I hope very well. I will begin by saying that it was really in my plans to see the film of It: Chapter II; however, due to various circumstances, I could not see in the cinema. However, I compensated, watching another movie that shares a feature with It: both films have a clown as a great antagonist. Only the latter is more disturbing, since it does not need an extra dimensional being, but a human disguised as a clown, which in itself is more disturbing. On this occasion I bring to you all my impressions and opinions of the Joker movie, the second film that Warner and DC have released this year and which (obviously) has a plausible origin for the villain and nemesis par excellence of Batman.

Could it be that this movie continues with the hit streak of DC and Warner? Or is it a movie that had a very high expectation and ends up disappointing own and strangers? Stay in my review to find out.

WARNING: NOT SPOILER-FREE. Read at your own risk.

To start, what did I think of the movie? Short answer: simply magnificent and fascinating. Now let's go into the review in more detail. 

Characters: What to say about this thing? Each of the characters has been thought carefully and although we do not see much of them, at least they fulfill very well their function of being support characters and even some of them serve as a catalyst to further explore the mind of our protagonist. None of these characters will leave you indifferent and also make the movie a more pleasant experience, due to their good performances.

Of course, I could not ignore our protagonist, Arthur Fleck, played by the great Joaquin Phoenix, who once again consolidates himself as an actor of excellent quality, in addition to demonstrating his talent to his full potential.

In this movie, he interprets (as I mentioned lines above) a man in his forties named Arthur Fleck, a poor unhappy man and that life does not treat him at all well. To top it off, he suffers from a peculiar disorder: he laughs uncontrollably when he suffers certain levels of stress and / or anguish. Basically, when he laughs, it is when he ironicly manifests his pain and suffering. And certainly, in the scenes where he laughs that way, it is where Phoenix's acting quality is most noticeable, since while he laughs, his face is disfigured in gestures of extreme bitterness and pain.

If there is something that the film does quite well, it is to explore the tormented psychology of the character, while offering a possible origin and reason why it became the iconic “crime clown” of Gothic City. Throughout the film, we see him resisting as much as he can the attacks and ill-treatment he suffers from a society that cannot and does not want to understand him; we see him slowly succumb to his madness and dark desires, pushed more than anything for days full of disappointment, bitterness and disinterest on the part of his fellow men. Thus, the film knows how to balance these two aspects that manage to give the character its own mythology, while paying a well-deserved tribute by taking certain elements of comics and stories that are already legendary in their own right.

Story: A story, which despite a somewhat slow pace, manages to keep the viewer's interest for about two hours. And it is not for less, since the history has been meticulously planned and well conceived and carried out. It's a story that doesn't bore you at all, and that really leaves you wanting more. It's funny, since, even long before the trailers, we all knew in advance that it would be a story of the character's origin, so we knew that eventually Arthur Fleck would become the Joker. What really left us intrigued and made us go to the movie theaters was the premise of seeing how he became the clown of crime, whose motives he had to let himself be carried away by his madness and had such a unique metamorphosis. Again, the film tells that story precisely and brutally.

And how to start a story with so much potential? Simple, through a scene, where we see Arthur make up as a clown to go out on another work day and while preparing, we see our protagonist break emotionally for a few moments, where he forces himself to smile and while he smiles he spills a Treacherous tear, shows palpable suffering that has to deal with daily and somehow manages to resist almost heroically. But reality and life constantly inflict wounds on his being.

Throughout history we see many evidence of this: we have that, while Arthur does his job, a band of brats steal a sign and Arthur pleadingly asks people for help, who ignores him in that dehumanized way and not according to that, the same band of brats beat him up.

Or how about the scene where one of his co-workers, Randall, gives him a gun so carelessly and that he lost his job - that despite everything, he loved - and his partner decided to wash his hands , before admitting his mistake?

We also have the case in which Arthur fervently tries to fulfill his dream of being a comedian and unfortunately not only does not succeed, but also Murray Franklin, his idol and role model openly mocks him.

But without a doubt, the hardest blow he suffered was when he learned that everything, ALL OF HIS LIFE, until now had been a lie. Finding out that he was adopted only to satisfy a narcissistic desire of his adoptive mother, that his own guardian allowed him to be abused in various ways and that his origin is completely uncertain create an emotional dent in him, since it has been given realize that his life - in his own words - has been a joke in its entirety. In my opinion, this is one of the most emotional and heartbreaking scenes of the film, since that is where we see Arthur laugh more uncontrollably than ever, while shedding tears and his gesture is of such extreme disappointment and pain, that one as a spectator, you can feel a total empathy with the character, despite knowing that he will become a murderous villain.

Another scene to highlight in the story, is when Arthur, already become the Joker, is featured in the show of his now former idol Murray. That is where The Joker, stopping to read for a few seconds a thought he wrote long ago ("I just hope my death makes more sense than my life"), is that he finally decides what he wants to do and what being he wants to become .

And is that previous scenes, Arthur is seen rehearsing his entrance and his act to the show, where we clearly see that he aimed to commit suicide in order to end his life so tragic.

In my opinion, when he reads those lines of his thought, he changes his mind and decides that he will now be forcefully heard and will do what he pleases and brings his own happiness and control of his life. It is also in this scene where there is a monologue that seems quite interesting to me, since Arthur rants against society that abandons not only the patients with mental disorders, but also the poor and the most needy people. It is, in its purest sense, a passionate speech, full of anger and resentment against society that, unconsciously, led him to become an executioner, now free from the bonds and ideas of good and bad with what society intended to retain him. And now the executioner intends to torture this society, which ironically now cries out for mercy when never had it in the first place with a human being like him.

Also in this scene is where the Joker gives another equally interesting speech, and it is that to some extent he is right in describing society as easily manipulable, since in his own words, that society was shocked by the death of the three Wayne business employees, without even knowing how they really were. Recall that behind the scenes, the three subjects were behaving like real patanes, harassing an innocent woman. In part, their deaths are brutal and to some extent an exaggerated punishment. But this must also be considered: at what point would these three have reached if Arthur had not been present? What limits would have been exceeded? An interesting reflection that gives a lot to think about.

Another point in favor of history, is that it not only focuses on the psychology and evolution of the main villain, but also manages to sustain, showing a dark side of society and especially the eternal struggle of social classes, especially The poor against the rich. Just remember that in the movie, these social classes make their position very clear: the rich condemn the crimes that they have done against them. The poor are full of joy for those acts that they consider pure and expeditious justice.

But…

Did it really happen everything that defined Arthur as the Joker?

Because in fact, in the same movie (and in various theories hanging around the internet) there are several clues that would confirm that the whole story we witnessed as spectators would be false. Some say that all their history is false and others maintain that only parts of it. And one might think that that little detail ruins the movie completely.

In this case, I would not think so.

And it is because of how the character is designed from the beginning. Basically the Joker is one of those characters who, as long as we knows less about his past, is much better, since it is part of his essence, being an entity of chaos whose origin is enigmatic and mysterious, a whole unknown. And if in truth his whole story is ambiguous or it didn't happen the way him told us, his past doesn't matter. What matters is precisely that we have been shown how his madness dragged him into becoming a criminal.

The story definitely gives a lot of fabric to cut from and is very worthy of analysis in many facets. The story, along with the characters - especially the protagonist - is the best of the film, and therefore it is a film that has no waste of seeing again and again.

Action and Visuals and special effects: Well ... where to start? Because if you ask me, I doubt that this film has been a great edition of special effects. I do not deny that I have one or another, but most of all the film is beautifully guided with the environments, the color palette and lights and especially a great script, so it is not necessary great effects. As for the action, the film has good sequences but they are very scarce and when they occur they are usually ephemeral. But do the film need action? Of course not, since it focuses on the character and his circumstances.

In conclusion, Joker, is a film very worth seeing and that has already become one of the best DC films, showing that in truth, when they want, they can achieve these wonderful results and that even overshadow their eternal rival Marvel. Therefore, I give this movie 4.5 out of 5 jokers. Beyond that, this film presents a new scheme that, if exploited in a good way, will create a genre in the superhero films: supervillain movies. And that is one of the greatest achievements of the film.

Definitely a highly recommended movie to watch and a very deserved achievement for DC and Warner. Hopefully they stay on this good path.

Greetings

Rankakiu

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

The Problem with the Avengers

 I’ve been reading a lot of Avengers comics recently scattered throughout their history and whilst they often have enough superhero action to kill some time, rarely have I ever found myself that engaged by the stories. In truth I’ve felt that way about virtually every Avengers story I’ve ever read.

In contrast whenever my reading lists took me to a random X-Men or Fantastic Four comic book I found they made for simply better reading.

This got me thinking about how traditionally and even now with the enhanced status the Avengers have in the comic series still seems to generate less enthusiasm than a lot of it’s competition with the really major superhero teams out there.

I think the fundamental problem is that, unlike those other teams, the Avengers is sorely lacking in identity.

I define the major Marvel/DC superhero teams as the ones that have been around near consistently for at least 30ish years and have have bled into multiple forms of other mass media.

So we’re talking the Fantastic 4, the Justice League (regardless of whether it’s called the Super Friends, the JLA, etc), the X-Men (and it’s associated spin-offs, e.g. X-Force, X-Factor, New Mutants) and the Titans/Teen Titans and the Avengers.

Unlike the Avengers, each of those teams has one or more simple ideas and hooks that have, more often than not, defined them and given them a basic but concrete premise to fall back on that the audience can easily connect to.

The Justice League are the All-stars of the DC universe, the team with the truly iconic characters in it’s line up and/or the guys who are at least mainstays of the DC universe in some fashion and well known to comic book readers. They are also at times allegorical to Greco-Roman Gods, e.g. Superman = Zeus, Batman = Hades, Green Lantern = Apollo, etc.

The X-Men are allegories for persecuted minorities and those who face bigotry in some fashion, as well as at times being allegories for adolescence.

The Fantastic Four are a nuclear family of scientists and explorers.

The Teen Titans are the junior heroes, the next generation, a junior Justice League if you will and more often than not the sidekicks to the older iconic heroes.

The Titans are the above but all grown up, independent, a non-nuclear family and in essence the next generation on the cusp of becoming the what their mentors were.

Now the Avengers at face value also have an easily understood hook too. They’re Earth’s Mightiest Heroes right? They, like the Justice League, are the All-stars of the Marvel universe right? Sometimes they’re talked of as being loosely equivalents to the Knights of the Roundtable.

The problem is that in practice...this is mostly lip-service.

For sure IN-UNIVERSE most people look up to the Avengers or hold them in similar esteem that the DC citizens hold the Justice League.

But as far as the real life audience is concerned for most of the Avengers history they really weren’t the All-stars of the Marvel universe and that comparison to Arthurian legend is really more talked about outside the comics more than it ever was genuine text or subtext in the pages themselves.

Lets put the Avengers into historical context. When the team debuted in 1963, consisting of Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, Ant-Man and the Wasp, all of those characters were less than 2 years old.

And its a matter of historical record that they were neither the highest selling nor the most popular superhero books Marvel was putting out, Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four were.

Furthermore the Hulk’s solo title had earlier that year been cancelled and whilst the other Avengers were continuing to regularly appear every month it was in anthology titles where they were simply the main, but not solo, stars. Those titles weren’t even NAMED after those heroes. You had Tales of Suspense for Iron Man, Journey into Mystery for Thor and Tales to Astonish for Ant-Man and Wasp.

Were these guys REALLY Marvel’s mightiest heroes?*

No they really weren’t.

To be frank it seems more like Stan Lee et al were trying to make bank off of the innate appeal of crossing characters over and doing so by grouping together the less successful and less popular characters.

You could make a similar argument for the Justice League of course, except when they debuted most of their members had been around considerably longer and they had Wonder Woman as a mainstay with Superman and Batman at times dropping in too, their presence only increasing across the decades. Nowdays many fans feel its just not the Justice League without the Trinity of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Back to the Avengers, these characters were the revered all-stars of Marvel in name only, with the Hulk even leaving shortly afterwards, replaced by the probably more famous Captain America...who also didn’t have his own book at the time. Cap actually didn’t regularly appear in any title until around a year after his Avengers debut when he began starring alongside Iron Man.

Cap might’ve been a long established hero but even he wasn’t high profile enough to get his OWN solo-series. In fact when he finally did what really happened was he became the solo star of Tales of Suspense (renamed to Captain America) and IRON MAN got his first true solo-series**

To make the matter clearer when the Avengers went through their first major shakeup (less than TWO YEARS after the series began) the cast consisted of Cap (who was still sharing with Iron Man at this point), Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.

The Avengers had now been reduced to one character who shared a title with another one and three former villains who’d NEVER had solo-stories before, who weren’t even appearing regularly anywhere outside of the Avengers title.

Creatively this wasn’t all that bad. After all one of the pitfalls of team books like Avengers or Justice League is that often the series is constrained by events happening in the characters’ solo books or the other way around. Like the, F4 Cap’s kooky quartet could grow and develop in the Avengers and the only place you could see that potential growth was IN the Avengers comic itself; Johnny and Ben’s bland and bad solo yarns in Strange Tales notwithstanding.

However Cap kooky quartet was yet more evidence of how the ‘Earth’s Mightiest Heroes’ was a cool slogan for the team and nothing more. They were a million miles away from being the Marvel All-stars they were treated or promoted as.

They were just ANOTHER Marvel team, more or less a home for miscellaneous Marvel heroes who were:

a)      Relatively Earthbound

b)      Not overly weird like Dr Strange

c)       Flashier than dude’s without costumes like Nick Fury

d)      Not already on teams

e)      Not independently popular/interesting like Spider-Man

 After all there is a reason so much of Iron Man and Cap’s histories are wrapped up with the Avengers titles and why most adaptations of the characters work in wider Marvel Universe elements. Its because those characters supporting casts and rogue galleries were not strong enough on their own to support their solo titles most of the time, so they essentially became Avengers satellite books.

 This miscellaneous aspect to the Avengers though gave rise to another interpretation of the team, that in fact part and parcel of the point of them was that ANY Marvel hero could join their ranks. In essence that the Avengers could be a grand crossroads of the Marvel universe where any and all characters could pop up.

 Its a nice sentiment but holds little water when you consider how the Avengers in-universe were typically treated as the premiere superhero team and how in practice many characters remained consistently out of their ranks. Even if we do swallow this line of thinking that simply means that the Avengers in being a team where anyone can join simply has no identity at all.

 The X-Men during Claremont’s iconic run had a similar sort of idea of constantly changing up the roster except that book had the fundamental mutant metaphor to hold the shifting characters together no matter what.

 When your team identity is that the identity can be anything your team hasn’t GOT an identity.

 And this problem with the Avengers (a lack of identity wrapped around a false claim of being the Marvel All-star line up) went on and on and on for DECADES!

 It got to the point where the X-Men, who in the Silver age FAILED compared to the Avengers, made good on their second chance and gradually grew in popularity until they clearly eclipsed every other Marvel team and by the 1990s eclipsed every other superhero team and book on the stands, exempting at times Spider-Man or Batman. In that decade anything with an X would sell whilst anything with an Avengers A was B-grade at best.

 Whilst the Avengers claimed to be Earth’s Mightiest Heroes and Marvels A-list heroes, Spider-Man and the X-Men actually WERE.

 In 2004 when Bendis created the New Avengers with the explicit intention of re-orientating the team to finally truly be the Marvel A-list squad it had always claimed to be it had 2 big problems.

 The first was that after 40 years and 500 issues the perception of the Avengers within the comic book community had become pretty entrenched. The second was that Bendis only slightly made good on this promise of reinvention.

 By which I mean he added Spider-Man and Wolverine (basically the Superman and Batman of Marvel as far as their popularity went) to the Avengers as mainstays and then kept Iron Man, Cap and added in B-listers Luke Cage and Jessica Drew and not even a B-lister the Sentry.

 To be clear I am not trying to insult Luke or Jessica but most people in 2004 didn’t know who they were and most who did didn’t care about him. they were added to raise their profile which is the exact opposite of what the book was claiming to do.

 Even now with both characters holding more prestige than they did back then, if you were making a truly All-star Marvel superhero team Luke Cage and Jessica Drew probably wouldn’t be on the squad considering neither has a movie.

 Whilst it’s true Bendis made New Avengers an unqualified success if you or I wrote a comic book with the two biggest Marvel characters in it hot on the heels of beloved and acclaimed movie appearances for both (which were sequels no less) of course it will sell like hot cakes.

 But that sales success has absolutely not lasted.

 Because again, the Avengers have no true identity as a superhero team, not even with the raised profile of the more traditional Avengers members afforded by their film appearances. At this point the failure of Iron Man’s popularity in wider pop culture to translate into much of an increase in comic sales is a bad joke. The fact is the comic book reading community still regards Iron Man as of lesser status than someone like Batman or Spider-Man or Wolverine and similarly the Avengers status as a team is still being hurt by the decades during which they were all sizzle and little steak.

 Ironically this effect has been mitigated in adaptations. In cartoons (like Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes) a fresh modern take on the Marvel universe was presented wherein the Avengers characters were among the first  and seemingly only heroes to inhabit that world (as far as the audience initially believed) essentially rendering them Earth’s Mightiest Heroes by default and free of the F4 or Spider-Man as a measuring stick could truly come off as All-stars. It also helped that the team membership was more consistent and a greater focus was placed upon their interpersonal relationships with one another, rendering them either a family or a kind of private little community of superheroes. Plus the show was as much an adaptation of the wider Marvel universe as it was Avengers stories, meaning often they could give focus episodes over to individual members to flesh them out.

 To n extent the same thing happened in the MCU although because the MUC established solo movies for most of the Avengers first it in essence raised the prestige of each character thus justifying their claim to the film Avengers being all-star players. Plus there was a certain glamour and energy afforded the first film from being a never before done experiment in crossing over so many properties, this then fuelling consequent movies like Infinity War.

 What’s ironic about all this is that the false interpretation of the Avengers being the Knights of the Roundtable is actually a way more fertile concept to build the Avengers team identity around and a more compelling hook to sell to the wider audience.

 You could retain the idea that, in-universe, they are the Marvel All-star line up, but in the true substance of the series loosely build the stories and characters more around moderinzed takes upon Arthurian legend and ideals of heroism. Much as the Justice League have at times served as loose allegories for the Greco-Roman Pantheon.

If you look at the original team of Avengers, plus Captain America and Hawkeye, they already fit into loose concepts of Medieval era knights anyway.

Cap is a soldier, in other words a modern day knight, who is the absolute ideal warrior (Lancelot) complete with a form of chainmail armour and a weapon distinctly from Ye Olden Days.

Iron Man has frequently been referred to as a modern day knight in shining armour because he literally wears armour.

Thor is a Viking whom, I’m not sure were exactly around during when Arthurian legend is supposed to happen but like...close enough.

Hulk is perhaps equivalent to a troll, a creature from Medieval fairy tales.

Hawkeye is of course an archer and a clear Robin Hood allegory (Robin Hood is also Medieval).

And you could say Ant-Man and Wasp are akin to pixies. And even if you think not Hank when Giant Man is obviously a fairy tale giant.

I’m not saying every character needs to be as exact as those, but it’s just something for the team to concretely hang their hat on rather than continuing to insist they are the best Marvel characters all in one team when they usually don’t even have Marvel’s most popular character with them!

[briangroth27]

Power Rangers (2017): Go, Go See This!

This is my 100th original blog post! Fitting that it’s about the modernization of one of my favorite things from childhood!

I was seven when Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers premiered on FOX Kids in 1993 and I still vividly recall watching the pilot in my parents’ living room. As soon as that Saturday’s morning cartoons ended, I immediately watched my newly-recorded VHS copy of “Day of the Dumpster” again: the adventures of five “teenagers with attitude” had hooked me instantly! Along with Superman, Batman, the Flash, and TMNT, the Power Rangers were some of the first live-action superheroes I ever saw, and they definitely left an impression. The giant robots (based on dinosaurs, another childhood obsession thanks to the recent release of my still-favorite movie, Jurassic Park) and monsters blew my mind. Amy Jo Johnson was my first celebrity crush. I took Tae Kwan Do for a few years solely because of Power Rangers. I still have all the original action figures, the Morpher & Power Coins, the Blade Blaster, the Megazord, and the Sega Genesis video game. I fell out of the Ranger fandom after Zeo ended, but I’ve always fondly remembered the originals. I went into the new movie just hoping it would be fun and proud of its roots; things like the R-rated Power/Rangers by Adi Shankar are cool and all, but the real Power Rangers don’t need to be grim and gritty. I left the theater humming the theme song with a huge smile; this movie is great!

If you were a fan of the show, you’ll love the new movie for taking the characters deeper than the original series did and for the clear love it has for its source material. If you thought the show was too cheesy, you’ll probably appreciate the modernized themes and issues the teens face here. The movie makes you wait for most of the action, but the characters were fun and compelling enough (and the actors strong enough) that it never felt slow. When the action does arrive, it’s earned and very well-tied to the characters’ arcs! That connection, striking at the core of the Rangers mythos, also makes for an important message about teamwork and understanding.

I didn’t think the Rangers needed to have powers when not morphed, but it didn’t hurt the story to introduce that aspect either (though it does remove an easy path to drama if they’re attacked and can’t morph). The Putties were formidable even with super-strength, so not having powers would’ve led to the unmorphed Rangers’ immediate deaths in this film (a rare case of the movies scaling the villains up to meet the standards of the heroes, something I wish Superman films would do with everyone not named Zod). I thought the suits were a little over-designed and bulky, preferring the ones from 1995’s film, but I didn’t hate them. Similarly, I prefer the simplicity of the original zord and Megazord designs, but these are good too. Jason gets his Power Sword during the fight with the Putty Patrol, but I wish everyone else had gotten their Ranger-specific weapons too (Zack’s ax, Billy’s lance, Kim’s bow, and Trini’s daggers). The final showdown didn’t feel rushed; I totally felt that it was worth the wait. That the team visibly showed fear during the final battle also humanized them and helped sell the idea that they were still teens and not at all polished superheroes, despite their mighty powers. 

Though the film looks a little washed out in terms of its color palette, there’s a great energy running through it. The effects were solid and felt realistic. I loved all the nods to the original series, such as the movie’s MacGuffin (the Zeo Crystal), what seemed like a shout-out to one of Rita’s best henchman (Scorpina), and an outstanding, iconic scene during the final battle. While there is a definite sequel teased in the mid-credits scene, this is a complete movie and I loved that it didn’t just feel like a stepping stone to bigger things.  

Absolutely see this!

Full Spoilers… 

My absolute favorite aspect of the movie was its focus on friendship and the need for the Rangers to harmonize in order for their powers to fully work. Like their Megazord, the Power Rangers are a team that’s stronger together than they are individually, and their literal inability to morph until after they’ve opened up and bonded with each other was portrayed perfectly. This was an excellent bridge between their character arcs (which felt like real things modern teens go through) and the superhero side of the story. There’s an important metaphor in your friends giving you the power to become a supercharged version of yourself capable of fighting your demons, and to paraphrase Zordon’s catchphrase from the series, that power protects these kids (and hopefully, the kids in the audience who see the value of connection and teamwork). Given the realistic diversity of this cast, it’s also easy to see this as a broader metaphor that the only way to survive and harness our true potential is to understand each other and work together.

Always believing the teens’ “attitude” meant good attitudes, I was initially skeptical when the trailer cast the Rangers-to-be as juvenile delinquents rather than the show’s socially conscious do-gooders, but the trailer was misleading. Jason (Dacre Montgomery), Kimberly (Naomi Scott), and Billy (RJ Cyler) meet in detention and Zack (Ludi Lin) skips school a lot, but none of them are terrible people needing epic redemption arcs. Instead, they’ve made mistakes (Jason’s in trouble for a prank gone very awry and Billy for an innocent experiment with explosives), but are still generally good kids. 

Kimberly did the worst thing—forwarding a scandalous picture of one of her ex-friends—but it didn’t mar her character as much as I feared it would (I was spoiled on that plot point). She and the movie acknowledge this as the awful thing it is and I was impressed that she immediately shot down Jason’s well-intended suggestion that she forgive herself because there are “lots of pictures out there.” Instead, she correctly points out that it changes nothing about the picture she sent or the effect it had on her former friend. “Everyone else does it” doesn’t comfort her or excuse her actions and the fact that she knows how bad it was and has clearly grown softened this change from the show’s Kimberly for me. Scott’s Kim isn’t the valley girl Johnson was, but you can definitely see hints that she used to be a similar popular girl. Despite the darker backstory, Scott channels the corresponding original actor more than anyone else in the film, crafting a performance that’s her own but includes strong shades of Amy Jo Johnson (as well as a dash of Buffy season 1-Sarah Michelle Gellar). She probably has the most personal growth in the film and, along with Billy, was my favorite character.

Billy’s still the brains of the team and sets their ascent to Rangerhood into motion. Though Cyler brought a different energy to Billy than David Yost did, he was still most definitely “Billy.” While Scott channeled her predecessor most, Cyler channels the essence of the original character most. Everyone deserves to see themselves as heroes, so I loved that the film delivered an autistic hero in Billy, something I don’t think any other superhero movie or TV show has done yet. To the film’s credit, his being on the Spectrum is never portrayed as something to overcome or a handicap he’s “so brave” to live with; it’s merely a fact of his life and doesn’t hamper his superheroics in any way. Cyler brought an instant likability to Billy that pulled me into the Rangers’ circle and played perfectly against his hidden pain over to the loss of his father. Because he’s so personable, Billy’s death hit me hard (even though I didn’t think it’d be permanent) and the other Rangers’ reactions felt realistic and believable—though they’re only together a week, the team’s bonding feels real.

Jason’s prank causes property damage so he isn’t initially the Boy Scout from the show (though he is a jock), but I really liked that his movie arc takes that idea and shows us how he might’ve gotten there, molding him into the upstanding (and understanding) father figure he craves as he takes on leadership of the Power Rangers. While he does have a father (David Denman) in the movie, there’s clearly a distance between them. What exactly caused it isn’t revealed beyond his dad not understanding him and perhaps having goals and expectations Jason doesn’t want for himself, so Jason’s issues felt the most routine and well-trodden in terms of movies and TV. However, his relationship with the Rangers is more important than with his parents, so I was satisfied that Jason’s parental issues were resolved by Zordon standing in for his dad, particularly when Jason found out why the Rangers morphing was so important to Zordon's plans. I liked that even though he was chosen to be the leader by virtue of being the Red Ranger, he wasn’t a natural and it felt like he had to earn that position, both in Zordon’s eyes and in terms of motivating the team. As familiar as Jason’s issues were (perhaps they were delivered in shorthand precisely because they're so universal), Montgomery never came off as boring or bland and he was a good lead.

Zack was fun and I liked that his up-for-anything bravado (an update of show Zack’s charisma, party-guy attitude, and jokester persona) was a cover for the knowledge that he’d probably very soon lose his mom (Fiona Fu) to her illness. While he and Trini (Becky G) could’ve definitely used more screentime to match the arcs Jason, Kimberly, and Billy had, I think Zack gets enough for Lin to display the fears just under the surface of his cool guy façade. He also gets to have some serious fun joyriding in his zord and physicalizes the tension and pressure the team’s under to become perfect superheroes in a week when he comes to blows with Jason. So, even though he wasn’t as big a focus as he should’ve been, he contributed to the personality mix in unique ways. Trini absolutely needed more material—her and Zack’s reduced screentime compared to everyone else is my one big negative note about the film—but what she got worked well. MMPR’s Trini was soft-spoken and polite, which here translated into a disaffected loner persona, owing to being moved around a lot and her parents’ (Erica Cerra, Patrick Sabongui) inability to accept her as anything other than the normal daughter they wanted. I liked that they made her the first LGBTQ movie superhero (Mystique and Harley Quinn are bi in the comics, but the X-films and Suicide Squad haven’t had that onscreen yet) and didn’t mind that this amounted to one conversation: none of the other Rangers have love lives explored here either. While Trini is guarded for a good portion of the film and her limited screentime gives her the hardest time when it comes to connecting with the others, I thought Becky G pulled the arc off. I bought her reasons for not talking sooner and her growing friendship with/trust in the others, particularly Kimberly, felt genuine. Not giving Trini more to do was a missed opportunity for what could’ve been a fun sequence of her using her superpowers to evade her helicopter parents to go train. Speaking of her parents, it’s odd they didn’t hear her room being trashed by Rita. She could’ve written the damage off as (extremely localized) effects of Goldar’s attack later on, but someone should’ve heard walls being dented. That could’ve been an opportunity to employ a classic “superhero has to explain extraordinary problems to keep their identity secret” moment. Given Becky G’s sardonic delivery when questioned about where she’d been spending her nights, she could’ve told her parents exactly what happened, comically upending those superhero tropes.

One of the film’s biggest surprises was that Zordon (Bryan Cranston) has an actual arc, making him far more interesting than the show’s version. I’d heard there was a prologue focusing on his history with Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), but feared a focus on Zordon and Rita might overshadow the Rangers themselves. That prologue is only a couple of minutes long, but Zordon’s desire to have a physical body again was still unexpectedly touching. His tension with the Rangers over this point provided some good conflict I didn’t see coming. Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) was another big improvement over the original version, who I always found annoying. Banks was entirely over the top as Rita, but that’s exactly who Rita is supposed to be! Like the Joker, I really don’t have an interest in an entirely serious version of Rita Repulsa. In fact, Banks’ casting—along with the tag line “Go Go”—was the first thing that convinced me this wasn’t going to be the super-serious mess it could’ve been in our current “gritty is automatically superior” pop culture mindset. Rita’s full-on insane and she fit in without breaking the tone of the movie, even against the grounded Rangers. I never felt she wasn’t a deadly serious threat (she kills several Rangers in this movie alone!).

It was cool that Amy Jo Johnson and Jason David Frank (my favorite original Rangers) got cameos here! I wish David Yost, Austin St. John, and Walter Jones also appeared; maybe next time. Jason Narvy and Paul Schrier really should get cameos too; as the original series’ Bulk and Skull, they were the longest-running characters in the show’s history. With that in mind, I was surprised a new Bulk and Skull didn’t make an appearance here…Jason’s prank buddy Damo (Matt Shively), possibly feeling rejected after Jason finds new friends, and the “Bully of Detention” (Wesley MacInnes) could’ve easily been them.

The post-credit scene lays out the arrival of Tommy Oliver, the Green Ranger, though I wouldn’t have minded one more film with just the original five Rangers. With five more films planned, there’s more than enough time to explore the dynamic between these kids before throwing Tommy into the mix. Still, I’m definitely excited for the prospect of a traitor Ranger, especially with this film’s emphasis on the team’s need for unity and trust to morph. Someone who can get past their defenses, earn their trust, and then stab them in the back will be a perfect, devastating adversary!

I love that we’re getting something of a Ranger renaissance now (to say nothing of the fact that 24 years and several iterations later, the show is still going). Not only did this movie come out (along with a tie-in sequel comic), but there’s an excellent ongoing Boom! Studios comic book featuring the original team! It’s set right after MMPR’s “Green With Evil” saga and deals with the Rangers learning to trust Tommy, and whether or not he can trust himself to be free of Rita’s influence. There’s also a fun Kimberly-focused 6-issue miniseries (“Pink”), set after she left the team, a crossover with the Justice League, and a brand new ongoing series set right after “Day of the Dumpster,” Saban’s Go Go Power Rangers, coming soon! While it’s at the other end of the tonal spectrum, Adi Shankar is trying to put together a gritty, adult-focused animated series about Power Rangers too. And of course, Saban & Lionsgate are planning at least five more films in the rebooted series, one of which may be a prequel focusing on Zordon and Rita’s team. With the film taking a series of hits at the box office after a strong opening, I think these plans might be pared down, but I really hope we get to see these Rangers’ adventures continue. Rather than rushing to create an entire universe at once, focus on making an excellent sequel to this one’s already superb foundation and then build from there!