Divergence and Daredevil at Primary Ignition!

Today's post is mostly a plug, as I haven't written a new post in a couple of weeks, and those of you who follow me on Twitter already know about the news I have to present here. Simply put, primaryignition.com is up and running again, with Rob Siebert at the helm once more, and I've returned with him.

Two new reviews with my name in the byline have been published, with more to come. The first such review was on Divergence #1, a Free Comic Book Day issue that DC Comics put out for the occasion, featuring new happenings with Batman, Superman, and the Justice League.

The second such review was on Marvel's Daredevil, a new Netflix original series based on the comic book property of the same name. It's pretty much what I always wanted from a live-action treatment of Batman, but just wasn't possible even in the Nolan films.

In sum, go read these reviews and get my rambling opinions on this stuff, straight from the horse's mouth. I assure you, gentle readers, new blog posts are on the way!

Also, happy Mother's Day to all of you mothers out there. Hi, mum.

Superman: Birthright and Superman for All Seasons: A Tale of Two Takes on an Icon

Author's Note: I am holding off on my long-promised post on the Air Nomads and Religious Vegetarianism, for the sake of obtaining more in-depth information about the subject. Until then, please enjoy this post about Superman.

I've written about Superman movies before, but I've never really written about Superman himself, let alone Superman comics. But over the last week or so, I've finally gotten around to reading Superman: Birthright and Superman for All Seasons, a pair of pretty notable Superman stories. The former was written by the esteemed Mark Waid, while the latter was written and illustrated by the equally esteemed team of Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale, respectively. This latter pair was also behind Batman: The Long Halloween and Batman: Dark Victory, the former being one of my favorite Batman stories. Meanwhile, Waid has written or co-written such great stories as Kingdom Come and 52, as well as acclaimed runs on The Flash, JLA, and also Daredevil over at Marvel.

Getting back to Superman, these two stories both helped to define Superman in comics in ways that were both hugely significant and hugely differing. Today, we will examine the differences between Birthright and Seasons as stories, as well as their respective takes on the world's most iconic superhero.

Right off the bat, Superman: Birthright is very different from Superman for all Seasons. Birthright was spawned in the early 2000's and ran for 12 issues. It was, at the time, meant to be the definitive superhero origin story for Superman, a concept which even then had been done literally dozens of time. Comics scholar Chris Sims notes that even before Birthright, Superman: Secret Origin, and Superman: Earth One all came about, both he and a friend agreed that the last thing they wanted to see in comics was yet another Superman origin story. Exactly why he believes this is beyond the scope of this post, but you can read all about it here. (A word of warning: I'll be citing Mr. Sims a lot in this article.)

Birthright's take on Superman's origin story seeks to capture the feel of Superman is a more "toned-down" and "realistic" way, which is generally code for our hero constantly expressing angst at his predicament. The edition I read stated that Birthright was specifically designed to mirror the approach that the odious Smallville was taking, which is never a good sign. Even the art has that weird, edgy, penciled look that was common in its day, leftover from the exaggeratedly grim and gritty feel that nearly all 90s comics had.

In the hands of a lesser talent, this might lead to what happened with Man of Steel. Not Mark Waid though, oh no. He manages to successfully present a version of Superman that is largely true to the character, yet at the same time mess it up just enough to make is significantly imperfect. Birthright's main problem in this regard is that it keeps looking for explanations and justifications for details that don't or shouldn't need to be explained or justified. The classic example, as indicated by Sims, is the rationale behind putting a giant red "S" on Superman's costume. There's a lot of ballyhoo about it being some kind of Kryptonian crest or a symbol of hope or whatever stupid crud they routinely pull out of their butts at the DC editorial offices, but Sims has a simpler explanation: He wears an "S" on his chest because "S" stands for Superman. There. Done. Mystery solved.

One thing that I actually did like that Waid elaborated on more fully was his explanation of how Superman's Clark Kent disguise manages to fool his coworkers, who are all reporters. It's brilliantly done, with Clark putting a lot of effort into it and nearly blowing it more than once. However, it leads to the one thing which I really don't like about Birthright, and it's not even in the story itself, but in the afterword: Waid goes out and states flatly that Clark Kent is the "mask" and Superman is the real man.

Bullcrap.

Aside from the obvious play for the appeal of Batman, a strategy makes minimal sense for reasons that we won't go into right now, the idea of Clark Kent being the "mask" and Superman being the "real man" is plainly flawed. It all boils down to Superman and Clark Kent being two sides of the same person who acts differently around different people, ditto for Batman and everyone else. The fact that Mark Waid of all people bought into it is beyond me.

Birthright itself is workable, enjoyable even, but still flawed. It focuses on how Superman would supposedly be found scary by the denizens of our oh-so-scared-and-paranoid post-9/11 world, and ever so trusting of a bald, corporate elitist like Luthor. I quickly debunked this idea when I asked my mom, no comic book aficionado, if she would be freaked out if Superman touched down in our backyard. The answer: Not if he looked like the Christopher Reeve version. Bingo! Guess what Birthright's Superman looks like? Sure, the folks in the military might be a bit spooked, but who's going to be scared by a guy with no mask flying around wearing a big red cape helping people?

Which brings us to Superman for All Seasons.

Seasons isn't so much an origin story as it is a summation of who Superman is and how he came to be. Everything from the narrative structure to the art is focused on producing a story which does this. The logical result of this methodology is that Seasons is nothing at all like Waid's pseudo-dour Birthright. We see Superman through the eyes of his family, friends, and that one bald guy who's his biggest enemy. Loeb and Sale specifically note that they wanted the art to be reminiscent of Norman Rockwell paintings, which gives us an incredible effect. It's homely, warm, inviting, emotional, and poignant. Heck, it's even fun!

One thing that makes Seasons such a classic is that it doesn't fall prey to the trap of obsessing over details which ultimately have little relevance to the story. Instead, its story and visuals primarily focus on developing the characters, creating memorable scenes, and communicating a rich narrative. As a result, the small details that fill up the background in these 4 issues give it a richness that Birthright could barely accomplish in 12. Every character from the Man of Steel himself to Smallville's local minister all stick in your mind and are beautifully rendered. Every panel gives us something visually worthwhile to look at. The stories this four-issue series tells us are breathtakingly engaging and a pleasure to read. There's no fretting about how Clark got his journalism degree or why he decided to be a superhero. Why he did it is decided in 2 pages -heck, I doubt it was that many- more effectively than Birthright's 2 or 3 issues devoted to the subject.

Most of all, there's a sharp contrast given between Superman and Lex Luthor. We're not given a totally solid explanation about why Superman and Luthor are at odds (we rarely are), but it's made clear that Luthor's an evil bad guy who firmly believes himself to be the good guy, and there's no tragic backstory given to justify what a jerkhole he is. He's just like that, and because of him, Metropolis is initially a fairly disagreeable place to live. That is, until Superman shows up.

To be fair to Birthright, elements of that story sort of leak into Geoff Johns' Superman: Secret Origin, which I believe is the best Superman origin story which I have yet read, though there are many out there. In truth, Secret Origin combines a lot of aspects from both Birthright and Seasons, such as Clark and Luthor knowing each other as children, or Superman's behavior as Clark Kent being at least partly natural and genuine, respectively. This results is a story which is decidedly above par, but not quite on the level of a classic like Seasons.

In the end, while Birthright does have some things going for it, I'll definitely choose Seasons any day of the week as my choice interpretation of Superman. It just has so much more life and energy that Birthright only dreams of having. They're both good, but only Superman for all Seasons is a truly great interpretation of an American icon. I'm just glad that I finally read it.

Image 1 courtesy amazon.com. Image 2 courtesy samquixote.blogspot.com

Big Hero 6: The Myth of the Corporate Supervillain

Warning: Minor spoilers for Big Hero 6 lay ahead.

I was pretty excited when Big Hero 6 won this year's Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Not only did it totally deserve it, but it did it while marking a significant milestone in comic book movie history: It is the first adapted superhero property to win an Oscar, the second, after Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight in 2008, to win any Oscar for anything superhero-related. And it really did deserve it. It has a compelling story, a world which was interesting to watch and beautiful to look at, a charming cast of characters to relate to, and some great emotion and deep themes. It even managed to deliver a pretty unique take on several common superhero tropes. It's the last of these that I want to talk about today, specifically concerning the character of Alistair Krei, voiced by Alan Tudyk of Firefly and Serenity fame.

In Big Hero 6, Krei is a businessman who runs the technology company Krei Tech. Krei first appears as an interested party who wants to buy the new robotics technology invented by Hiro Hamada, the film's protagonist. Hiro declines the offer on the advice of his brother Tadashi's mentor, Professor Callaghan, the scene setting up Krei as the film's obvious bad guy. But surprisingly, it turns out to be a red hearing which the  characters as well as the audience buy into. It's also a neat subversion of a trope which has been played out many times before: the Corrupt Corporate Executive.

The Corrupt Corporate Executive is often used in works of fiction as a stock character who is typically bald, fat, smoking a big cigar, or some combination thereof. Quite plainly enough, this character is a corporate executive who engages in villainous activities, which may or may not be related to their profession. Examples readily abound all across fiction, including Lex Luthor of DC Comics, Hiroshi Saito and Varrick from The Legend of Korra, Norman Osborn, Justin Hammer, Bolivar Trask, and whoever is running Roxxon at any given time over at Marvel, and even Jon Spiro from Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl.

Typically, corrupt corporate executives in fiction are greedy, obnoxious, dishonest, and evil. They will go to any lengths to make an extra buck, up to an including everything from cooking the books to mass murder. Some even commit the unpardonable sin of *gasp* making and selling weapons. Obviously, they are usually motivated by monetary gain, and they are typically psychopaths who routinely abuse their employees and customers, and use their vast financial resources to cover up their dirty deeds.

But I have a news flash for writers who like to write corporate bad guys this way: This is not what real corrupt corporate executives, I believe, are even remotely like.

My first objection is a matter of logic: How on earth would someone who does half the things that, say, Lex Luthor does have any hope of succeeding in business? Business is a very teamwork driven industry, and being greedy, obnoxious, dishonest, and evil is not a good way to get people to want to work for you, or for that matter, buy stuff from you. I mean, would you honestly want to do business with Justin Hammer or Jon Spiro, the latter of whom has blatant mob connections and the FBI and CIA breathing down his neck, but still somehow remains a successful businessman? I certainly wouldn't. The notion that people like them stay in business by spreading a bunch of money around is plainly laughable, as it could obviously cost more to bribe their way out of trouble than it would by simply playing by the rules. The International Chamber of Commerce, in a plain statement of the obvious, has said of corruption as related to public relations, "Enterprises seen to be doing business with integrity are more likely to attract and retain highly-principled and motivated employees as well as ethically-oriented investors. In contrast, companies confronted with corruption cases have faced reputational damage."

Secondly, even the corporate executives who are corrupt in the real world aren't out poisoning the reservoir, or knowingly selling dangerous products to the unwitting public, or hiring spandex-clad thugs to intimate business rivals, all of which are crappy business models. The ones that do do things like that get shut down fast or are fined into oblivion, and often for even smaller slights than that. Oddly enough, I can't remember the last time Pfizer poured cyanide into the reservoir for some reason. No, corporations that engage in illegal activity are a bit more mundane in their lawbreaking. The International Chamber of Commerce defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private financial or non-financial gain. It diverts resources from their proper use, distorts competition and creates gross inefficiencies in both the public and private sectors." It is furthered categorized as bribery, solicitation of bribery, or extortion.

What does this mean? It means that a real life corrupt CEO isn't plunking down bags of cash to hire supervillains to scare his business rival into a buy out, or being overtly hostile during a hostile takeover, or stealing an inventor's property for sinister purposes, as the heroes in Big Hero 6 suspect Krei of doing. At least, not in America. Don't ask me what it's like in China or Venezuela or Brazil, because that's a whole different pie. No, your average corrupt corporate executive is engaging in a little "creative accounting," moving the numbers around to disguise the company's profits. Maybe he's helping the mob launder money if he's a bit more adventurous. If she's a little lower in the hierarchy, it could be embezzling. Bribing a government inspector? It happens. It all boils down to the simple fact that if you're an exec, and you do something illegal, it's not probably not going to made into an movie, and you're going to be unceremoniously carted off to a minimum security prison really, really fast. Which brings us to the next hurdle of being a corrupt corporate executive: anti-corruption programs. 

Most major, profitable companies have some kind of anti-corruption program. Whether these programs are effective or not is debated, but it's a good sign that they exist at all. Even if they aren't particularly good at detecting corruption, when the company begins to go down the tubes thanks to corrupt executives, these guys are usually there to blow the whistle. In short, if anti-corruption programs don't take down a bad exec, the company will implode on its own, kind of like what happened with Enron. The point is, bad behavior among corporate big wigs usually comes back to bite the perpetrators in the end, and as a result is plainly more trouble than it's worth. 

Which brings us back to Krei.

Krei isn't given a whole lot of analysis in the film, largely existing as the aforementioned red hearing. He's affable, ambitious, mildly smug, a little feckless and implicitly intelligent. I mean, he built up his own tech company and was involved in a teleportation project with the military, so he has to be a clever guy. But he's not the film's villain. He doesn't actually do anything illegal, or even wrong. We only know what his "bad" qualities are based on what the film's real villain says about him, and this villain isn't exactly an impartial judge of character. The closest he gets to being bad is a tragic accident in which he was only vestigially responsible for, if only because the film's real villain blames him for it. The point is that he's not a corrupt corporate executive. He's not even such a bad guy! In fact, the only reason that Hiro and his friends think Krei's a bad guy at all is because Fred, their resident comic book geek, points out the villains of a lot of comic books are actually corrupt industrialists. It's a clever and funny way of subverting a by now very tired superhero cliche.

In the end, Big Hero 6 is a fine entry into the Disney animated cannon, being a fun, rollicking, emotionally deep film that sucks you in and keeps you glued to the screen the whole way through. It's beautiful to look at, engaging to watch, and provides fun for the whole family. I wholly recommend it as entertaining, innovative, and uplifting. I'd love to see where they go with a sequel.

Fun fact: This isn't the only animated Disney flick that Alan Tudyk has lent his voice to. He also voiced the slightly more villainous Duke of Weselton in Frozen. Oddly enough, he also voiced Superman in Justice League: War.

Follow Levi on Twitter at @levi_sweeney, and submit questions and post ideas with the hashtag #QLevi

Image 1 courtesy of blogs.disney.com. Image 2 courtesy of disney.co.uk.

Spider-Man: The Greatest Superhero in Comics

Web-slinger. Spidey. Web-head. "Masked menace." Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.

We all know the story. Or at least, we all should know. It was plastered on the big screen on no less than two occasions, plus all the comics and TV shows. Peter Parker was an Ordinary High School Student. But when he went to that science lab and got bitten by a radioactive spider, he gained the proportionate strength, speed, and agility of a spider, plus a sort of sixth-sense that allows him to detect danger (dubbed "spider sense"). At first, he did what any real teenager would do: He used his powers to make money. But when his Uncle Ben was murdered by some random jerkhole whom Peter could have stopped earlier, Peter decided to take his Uncle Ben's admonition that "With great power there must also come great responsibility," and use his powers to help people. Thus, Spider-Man was born!

My bold declaration in the title of this post may have many of you wondering. Surely the lowly Spider-Man is not the world's greatest superhero? Does not that title belong to Superman? What about Captain America, or even Batman? Let me assure you that I stand firm in my conviction. Superman may be the world's most well known ("iconic") superhero, and Batman and his associates may be my personal favorites, but Spider-Man is still the best. Why? If you want a really good reason, go to Comics Alliance and find Chris Sims' article on the subject. My take, however, is a bit different. The thing about Spider-Man, about Peter Parker, is the whole "With great power comes great responsibility" thing. It may sound clichéd, but it is in fact pretty original. Spider-Man was the first real superhero that Stan Lee and co. actually wrote. The Fantastic Four were more like a team of adventurers, and the Hulk was just a rampaging monster, but Spider-Man was genuine superhero, when the superhero comic was still relatively young. I could go on about how this reflected Marvel and DC's differing modus operandi, but I'll leave that to Mr. Sims. The point here is that Spider-Man was specifically setting out to help people. Not to ruthlessly target crime like Batman, or to routinely save the world and circumvent disaster like Superman, though he has done that. He doesn't even do it to fight supervillains, though he does that a lot. Spider-Man's core purpose is to use his powers responsibly, and to him, that means helping people and doing the right thing, no matter what.

Of course, this trait alone is not enough to make Spider-Man the greatest superhero in comics. At least, not without elaboration. When Spider-Man was created, he was, as mentioned, an ordinary high school student. A teenager. Back in the day (that is, 1962), it was a pretty novel idea to have a teenage superhero headlining his own book. Before that, teenagers and other younger characters were seen as only worthy of being sidekicks. (Stan Lee, for the record, hated sidekicks.) When Spider-Man became unexpectedly and outrageously popular after first appearing in Amazing Fantasy #15, pop culture became awash in teenaged heroes, so much so that the character has become even more clichéd than "With great power comes great responsibility." (On a side note, it was also a pretty novel idea to have the story being set specifically in New York City, as opposed to some generic, made up metropolitan area.) The point is that Spider-Man does what he does, the right thing, no matter what, in the context of having to deal with all the normal problems that teenagers have. And by normal problems, I mean the feeling that everyone reading this got as a teen that the world's out to get them. The genius here, however, is that for Peter Parker, he has actual life-threatening situations to counterbalance perceived life-threatening situations. He's got midterms, girl trouble, an ailing aunt, adults who hate him for some reason, money problems, the whole nine yards, plus criminals, killers, supervillains who have a personal fixation on killing him, the media, and the general public, who all hate him.

The thing is, though, the things going on in his personal life are generally a lot more stressful and angst inducing for Peter than Kraven the Hunter trying to drive a spear through his torso. Just like a real teenager would. A real teenager, if granted the power of Spider-Man, would get cocky and have fun, like Spider-Man does. Chris Sims notes that Peter Parker's activities as Spider-Man is a way for him to "cut loose" and relax. That's why he cracks jokes, makes fun of his enemies, and relishes in hand-to-hand combat with unabashed glee. This is made abundantly clear in Ultimate Spider-Man when Peter decides to quit being Peter Parker, having come to the conclusion that everything's fine when he's Spider-Man, and that it's his personal life that's giving him all the trouble. Of course, this leads to an imbalance in his life as Spider-Man, nearly leading to disastrous consequences from neglecting his personal life. All of this makes it even more important to remember that whenever Spider-Man is despairing over a battle with his villains, stuff just got real. Because normally, an episode of Spider-Man's crime fighting adventures is another exciting interlude in the personal drama of Peter Parker's hapless mundane life. He doesn't have Batman or Iron Man's lax, luxurious secret identity, or the sheer, raw power and charisma of Superman. Peter doesn't even have a team of super-powered buddies to help him out every now and then (except when he does, such as when he's serving with the Avengers). And yet... he does the right thing. Because of all of this, Spider-Man is the first superhero to ever achieve something that all previous superheroes had not: He was able to make the reader relate to him.

Most importantly of all, however, is that Peter Parker does not stay an angsty teenager. He grows up. He matures. He lives life. He falls in love. He gets married. (See One More Day) He doesn't grow older than, say, 30, this being comic books, but he does go from boy to man. Peter Parker goes from insecure, petulant child to noble, strong, heroic young man. And he is a man, because, say it with me, "With great power, there must also come great responsibility." Similarly, Winston Churchill said, "A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality." In light of this, if there ever was a man, it is Spider-Man.

Spider-Man's greatness is also helped by the fact that he has, as Mr. Sims has observed, the best supporting cast in comics. Aunt May, Mary Jane Watson, J. Jonah Jameson, Harry Osborn, Gwen Stacy, Captain George Stacy, Flash Thompson, Robbie Robertson, and all the rest of them. And while not having the best rogues gallery around (that honor goes to Batman), he does have a quite memorable set of villains, including the Green Goblin, Doctor Octupus, Venom, Sandman, and the Vulture. I'd go on, but it's a bit beyond the scope of this post.

As hard to believe as it may seem, I've actually been into Spider-Man a lot longer than I've been into Batman. I remember borrowing the 2002 Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie from my Aunt when I was a kid, though my parents wouldn't let me watch it until a couple of years later. I still have fond memories of that movie, the original Raimi film holding a special place in my heart, kind of like Jean-Paul Valley. I remember pouring over Spider-Man: The Ultimate Guide, which, I'm sad to say, is the only exposure to the original comics that I've really had. (The originals are on my list, don't worry!) This in turn led me to read Ultimate Spider-Man, which I read faithfully until Prelude to Death of Spider-Man. I intend to return to it later, but I was thrown for a loop by certain plotting decisions that the esteemed Brian Michael Bendis made. On the other hand, it's worth noting that TVTropes refers to Ultimate Spider-Man #1 as the beginning of the Modern Age of Comics. I just find it difficult to believe that 10+ years worth of comics happened in a little over 1 year. They didn't even show the seasons changing! But I'm getting off track...

I've only read a little bit of the main continuity Spider-Man (such as the woefully messy Spider-Island crossover.), and I don't think much of the new stuff. I've been wanting to check out Scarlet Spider and the original stories, plus The Superior Spider-Man, which I heard was good, but I haven't had much interest in reading post-One More Day stuff. Then again, Chris Sims has gone on record saying that Brand New Day initiated a long overdue shake up in Spider-Man's status quo, but we'll get back to that later.

Spider-Man has appeared in many other media besides the many comic book series, with two movie series, multiple animated series (one of which I wrote a review on in the early history of this blog, The Spectacular Spider-Man), a short-lived live action television series, and even a Broadway musical! For the record, Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man was decidedly underwhelming, and I haven't heard good things about its sequel, leaving me hesitant to embrace it.

A final question must be addressed concerning the topic of Spider-Man: If Spider-Man is, in fact, the greatest superhero in comics, then why do I prefer Batman and associates? I guess it's because the Batman mythos harbors another character similar to yet very different from Spider-Man: Tim Drake. I'm primarily a DC man, and I'll always cast my sword with Batman and his associates in that regard. I like Batman, Tim Drake's Robin, and Jean-Paul Valley's Azrael because they've got this edge to them, this "cool" factor. Spider-Man may be more fun, but Batman is more cool. Nevertheless, I'd like to make clear that Spider-Man is really the only Marvel hero that I've ever particularly liked. I intend to get into Thor later, and maybe Captain America, but for now, Spider-Man is my only hero at Marvel. But perhaps that will change someday. In the meantime, Thwip!

Image courtesy of designyoutrust.com

Batman's Villains: The Greatest Rogues Gallery in Comics

Superman is the most iconic superhero, and Spider-Man has the best supporting cast, but Batman has the best villains. And believe me, I'm not just playing favorites. The Joker, Two-Face, the Riddler, the Scarecrow, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Ra's al Ghul, Bane, and the Penguin are all awesome villains who have battled the Dark Knight for decades and will continue to do so, even while those upstart new villains like the Court of Owls and the Black Glove and Professor Pyg try to make a name for themselves. These classic villains are all well known for their flamboyant appearances, unique methodologies, and compelling back stories. But none of these things tells us why they are the best at being bad. Indeed, there is one singular reason that Batman's villains, the best ones anyway, all share which makes them the greatest rogues gallery in comics.

First, to understand Batman's villains, we have to understand Batman. Indeed, we could easily turn that phrase around and say that to understand Batman, you have to understand his villains, but we'll get to that later. Right now, the key to understanding Batman is that he's a, to quote the Joker from The Dark Knight, "an unstoppable force." He's got the body, the brain, and the bucks to be the Batman, and he does exactly that: Be the Batman. He's the World's Greatest Detective. He's the Caped Crusader. He's the Dark Knight. He is Batman. He sees a problem, comes up with multiple plans to solve it, and then tackles it with gusto, always succeeding. He doesn't just see problems. A lot of times, he foresees problems, and takes appropriate preventative measures, such as always carrying a Kryptonite ring in case Superman goes rogue, or instilling a "back up personality" in his mind to take over in the event of... something happening, I don't know. Just got read Batman R.I.P. or look up the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh. I didn't. Anyway, the idea here is that Batman is ready, willing, and able to accomplish his goals, such goals including protecting the innocent, fighting against crime and corruption, and beating up evil clowns.

What does all of this have to do with why Batman's villains are the best rogues gallery in comics? The long and short of it is that Batman's best villains are the best around because they are all, to some extent or another, a reflection of some aspect of Batman himself. The Joker, for instance, is the "immovable object" to counter Batman's "unstoppable force"; that is, both are stubborn in their goals, which are polar opposites. The Joker is an unstoppable force for chaos while Batman is an unstoppable force for order. Two-Face is a bit more obvious, reflecting the dual nature of Batman and Bruce Wayne, though that's a bit of an oversimplification of what Chris Sims called "the most overrated truism in comics." The other ones are all a bit easier to identify. Riddler is really smart and does whatever he can to prove it; Batman is super smart and doesn't feel the need to prove anything. The Scarecrow uses fear as a weapon for evil; Batman uses fear as a weapon for good. Ra's al Ghul wants to make the world a better place by destroying it; Batman wants to make the world a better place by fixing it.

Catwoman is a bit more difficult to categorize (no pun intended), mainly because she's not really a villain anymore, and more of an anti-heroine. She does, however, reflect Batman in that she targets the criminal element for theft, and the criminal element only. Batman may make plans to deal with fellow superheroes, but only if they become part of the criminal element. In addition, both generally show restraint in pressing situations, not to mention having above average athletic and strategic capability, and both are willing to go to extremes to accomplish their goals. The most notable commonality, is simply that they are both the best at what they do. Even the Penguin, while an admittedly lesser villain in the Batman rogues gallery, reflects Batman in that he is a rich heir who turned to crime while Batman was a rich heir who decided to fight crime.

Batman's rogues gallery retains the honor of being the best in comics for one simple reason: They all, to one extent or another, reflect him or a faucet of him. All of the best villains, from the ones as old as the Joker to newer villains like Bane, are great villains because they have varying commonalities with a great hero, while at the same time being perfect foils to him. As the villain in Unbreakable said, "In the comic you know how you can tell who the arch villain is going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero!" In a similar vein, the best villains, not just the best Batman villains, but the best villains everywhere, have to be the total opposite of the hero, but still have something in common in him in order to be able to have any sort of dynamic with them. Whether the link is in motivation, back story, or methodology, where you have this principal, you generally have a great villain. And having a great villain is the key to having a great story.

Image courtesy of free-wallpapersblog.blogspot.com

Review: Superman (1978 film)

Frequent readers of The Stuff of Legend may have noticed that I frequently distinguish my friend Nate with a parenthetical indicating his admiration of the 1978 Superman motion picture, as, to paraphrase my dear friend, the best superhero film ever made. My long and storied friendship with dear Nate aside, it is now that I must disclose my own opinion. That is to say, I could not disagree with him more. 

"Why?" you may ask. For many comic book fans, and general aficionados of popular culture, this film, directed by Richard Donner, is up there with the absolutely horrid 1989 Batman film as, to quote Chris Sims and David Uzumeri of Comics Alliance, "a sacred cow." Indeed, I respect both of those films' statuses as "cultural monoliths," to borrow another phrase used by Sims and Uzumeri. However, that does not diffuse Superman's status as an ultimately substandard piece by both the standards of mainstream film and as a comic book adaptation. But again, the question remains: "Why?" We will get to that soon enough.

Superman is your basic origin story for the world's first and most iconic superhero, the Man of Steel, the Man of Tomorrow, the Last Son of Krypton, etc. And really, does the story really need to be told again? In the words of Grant Morrison: "Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple." My point here is that Superman's origin story has been told literally dozens of times (the Grant Morrison quote was from All Star Superman) and hardly needs to be told again. We've got Superman: Secret Origin, Superman: Birthright, Superman for All Seasons, the aforementioned All Star Superman, and the tragic monstrosity that was Man of Steel. But before all of that, there was this movie, and even then the story was old. But I digress. But what's Superman's basic plot? Kal-El is sent to Earth by his father Jor-El (Marlon Brando) to escape Krypton's impending doom, Kal-El is raised as Clark Kent by a pair of human surrogate parents in Smallville, Kansas, Clark discovers his powers, Clark becomes Superman (Christopher Reeve) and begins operating out of Metropolis, and Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) shows up to make life miserable for him. Oh, and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), Jimmy Olsen (Marc McClure) and Perry White (Jackie Cooper) show up too.

See? I told you you'd know it.

To get to the point, if this film is notable for anything, it is for one thing only: It is the earliest example of a superhero film which takes the source material seriously, the "straight take" to quote Sims and Uzumeri again. Gone is the aura of camp and flagrant silliness that characterized Superman and the Mole Men and the 1960's Batman TV show. Whether or not this is a good thing does not matter, as it all depends on whether you like your superheroes one way or another, both of which are legitimate interpretations. That does not mean that this film does not stray into the hokey, bizarre, ridiculous, and, dare I say it, cheesy, for no superhero story can escape from that. It does mean, however, that it was approached by the filmmakers as worthy of putting worthwhile effort into it, of making the film more than a "kids" movie.

What else is noteworthy about Superman? I'm sorry to say that I can only think of three things: The acting, the humor, and the musical score. Despite Superman being the first serious take on the genre, it is unabashedly shoddy as a film, and remains one of the most fundamentally puffed up, self-important motion pictures of all time. Having watched the film with my friend Nate, I have a vague idea of why so many people insist on showering this film with praise. It probably has something to do with a.) The really catchy John Williams score b.) The incredible acting, and c.) It's flipping Superman. But on the whole, Superman is dragged down by its problems to an irreparable extent. 

The main problem with Superman isn't its central characters, though they are structurally flawed and poorly developed, nor its story, though it is ill-paced and badly written. No, the problem lies within the plot, in that there is no central plot, until Lex Luthor shows up to carry out his hilariously stupid plan. Even after that, and well before that, the pacing is all over the map, being horribly frenetic, yet at the same time painfully slow. Clark's transformation into Superman, for instance, is ludicrously handled and equally abrupt. He apparently goes to the Fortress of Solitude in the arctic before spending 15 years in stasis learning super-physics from a computer simulation of his dead father. He spends of the rest of the movie doing standard superhero stuff and flirting with Lois. Despite sounding compelling and interesting, don't think for a minute that this is the case. All of these problems coalesce to result in a film which is, at its core, terribly and woefully boring. I've seen Charlie Chaplin films with more color than this flick.

Lex Luthor's motivation and origin in this film are just as inexplicable. He is the personification of Diabolos ex Nihilo, "Devil from Nothing." There is no explanation given to his villainy at all, which is as over-the-top and exaggerated as possible. He's already there with the secret underground base and henchmen and everything. Otherwise, he's well acted by Gene Hackman and is a pretty decent portrayal of what I imagine Silver Age Lex Luthor to have been like.

Speaking of acting, that's one of the two good things about this film, aside from the music and humor. Christopher Reeve is brilliant as Clark Kent and as Superman, playing them both with the characterizations unique to the two sides of the same character. Marlon Brando is great as Jor-El, for some reason getting first billing above Donner, Hackman, Reeve, and the flipping title, despite only appearing for five minutes. The whole cast is great, in fact. Heck, even Terrence Stamp, who appears as General Zod for even less time than Brando in what amounts to a cameo, makes a more of an impression in two minutes than most of the rest of the cast does in the whole movie. It basically amounts to an in-film commercial for Superman II, but hey, good acting is good acting.

The only other good things about this film are the humor and the score. Most of the gags are pretty funny, especially the bits with Clark, Lois, Jimmy, and the rest of The Daily Planet staff. And the score, oh man, the score. It captures the mood perfectly, being composed by the great John Williams. Hans Zimmer really had his work cut out for him when he composed for a very different Superman film. That opening theme is just too good for words.

However, despite these few redeeming values, Superman remains, on the whole, a largely mediocre superhero film. From the glaring plot structure flaws to Lois's stupid poem, to the ridiculous Superman-as-space-Jesus/Moses/what-have-you thing that Donner, Bryan Singer, and now Zach Snyder are so infatuated with, my judgement remains. I see it as being about equal in quality to Man of Steel, only for much different reasons. Indeed, it really isn't very fair to compare the two at all, as they are both incredibly different movies. Superman is optimistic, with a faraway look in its eye. Man of Steel is dark and gloomy, with its eyes starring off into space, or at the ground, as it were. But in the end, despite its self-importance, Superman has an (admittedly infinitesimal) degree of fun to it that Man of Steel couldn't ever possess in all its ballyhooed seriousness and realism. For that, and that attribute only, I'll rate Superman just a little better over Man of Steel any day. It may not be very fair to compare them, but really, what else do you expect from a fanboy?

RATING: 7.5/10

Fun fact: Terrence Stamp, who played General Zod in this movie, debuted as the titular character in Billy Budd, for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. He also played Chancellor Finis Valorum in Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, and voiced the High Prophet of Truth in Halo 3. Woof! What a filmography!

Image courtesy of geektyrant.com

Review: Man of Steel

There are many movies and television shows I haven't seen, books and comics I haven't read, and audio dramas I haven't listened to. In the sector of comics that I have read, the least superhero I've read of is Superman. I've read Luthor and Superman: Secret Origin, and Superman for All Seasons and Superman: Birthright are on my list, but I can't honestly profess to be a huge Superman fan. I saw the sadly terrible Superman Returns, but I haven't seen the original Superman film series, the first two of which my buddy Nate thinks are the best superhero films ever made. I haven't even seen the awful monstrosity that is Smallville, though I've read the Comics Alliance commentaries on both the Superman films and Smallville to know a thing or two about those works. Thusly, I went into Man of Steel fairly fresh, not having much to compare it to, and not having huge expectations or preconceptions of what I should see on the big screen. But I knew and know enough to know that this isn't the best we could have gotten.

For those of you who don't know Superman's origin story, this film portrays Superman's origin, with Jor-El (Russel Crowe) sending his son, Kal-El, to Earth to escape the impending destruction of their home planet of Krypton. Kal-El is brought up on Earth by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, respectively) as Clark Kent (Henry Cavill). Clark's powers, activated by his Kryptonian physiology under our yellow sun, manifest in his childhood years, which are show via flashbacks which punctuate Clark's journey around the world, doing good where he can. Meanwhile, Intrepid Reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) begins investigating this mysterious do-gooder after encountering Clark at the crash site of a Kryptonian ship in the Arctic while on assignment (the laughably implausible explanation for her being able to be there is detailed in this post over at Law and the Multiverse). Unfortunately, she isn't the only one looking for Clark, as the Kryptonian revolutionary leader General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his troops have arrived at Earth, seeking to claim Superman who he believes has a genetic codex which will allow him to revive the Kryptonian race. Will Clark be able to defeat General Zod? Will Lois get her story? Will the military brass stop behaving like massive unprintable things to Clark, known to some as "Superman"?

Okay, let's get a few things straight. There are some things, a lot of things, that this movie gets right. Firstly, the movie has some impressive visuals, bolstered by top grade cinematography. Everything from the scenes on Krypton to Clark flying around Metropolis has a great look to it. The logical extension of this point is that the action is good and shot well, and while it is, I'll elaborate on my issues with the action later.

Secondly, there's also some great emotion in this movie. The scene from the trailer where Clark says, "The world is too big, mom," and she replies with, "Then make it small" is sold very well in the actual movie, where the whole thing is on display. Cavill also plays a great Superman, acting with the standard noble, friendly, but serious air of our favorite Paragon of Virtue (more on that in a minute). However, I'm sorry to say that he doesn't get the chance to play "Clark Kent," in that he doesn't adopt the mild mannered reporter persona until the very end of the film. If he did, I have no doubt there would have been a plethora of comparisons to Christopher Reeve, but I won't make those comparisons here because I have yet to see the original Superman films. As for the other actors, Russel Crowe is phenomenal as Jor-El, as is Amy Adams as Lois Lane, and Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent. Even Laurence Fishburne as Perry White is great, though his characterization is something I'll tackle later, along with that of others. But if anyone steals the show, however, it's Antje Traue as Faora-Ul, General Zod's number two. She's a total badbutt who absolutely wipes the floor with Superman, and excellently delivers some great lines. She's menacing, well acted, and really, really cool.

However, that's where the good ends. Let us proceed to the bad. My chief complaint with this movie is that there is just too much action and too much stuff blowing up. It batters your senses in a way that Green Lantern could only dream of. This movie is awash in explosions and violence, climaxing in a battle which wrecks Metropolis in a hemorrhaging spectacle which is undoubtedly a gross overuse of CGI. Smallville itself all but gets blown to bits, for Pete's sake! Even Jor-El gets in on the action, engaging in a fist fight with Zod. This scene in particular was way out of left field for me two reasons; first, Jor-El isn't a warrior, he's a scientist, and what with Krypton's apparent custom that every child's role in society is selected for them, why would Jor-El know how to fight if he was logically never a soldier? Did he enroll at the local dojo and learn how to be a badbutt? Just... why?

Another thing that doesn't make sense is Zod's plan. His goal is to use the Kryptonian world building machine to make Earth into a brand new Krypton, which would wipe out humanity. But instead of doing that, once they have Superman in custody, why don't they just back track to one of the worlds previously used by the Kryptonians, use the world building machine on one of those worlds and then use the codex to revive the Kryptonian race? I suppose one could argue that Zod wanted to control a world with a yellow sun that granted Kryptonians fantastic powers, but he clearly didn't know about that until he was in the middle of his plan, and even if he did, he could have avoided a lot of conflict by using the world building machine on, say, Mars, and colonize the new Kryptonian race there. (Knowing Zod, he would probably start a war of conquest against Earth anyway, but that's just even more hypothetical nonsense.)

Other complaints of mine involve characterization. Lois Lane may be well acted, but I don't think this is a very good version of her. Sure, she's an Intrepid Reporter, but she lacks that feisty streak, that tough-as-nails edge that Lois in the comics has. She was more like your average damsel in distress here. Her boss, Perry White, has a different problem. He's supposed to be a journalist, but rejects Lois' first article on Superman because he doesn't believe it would be well received by the public. Granted, that's probably true, but like I said, Perry White is a journalist. He of all people should believe that the people have a right to know. And then there's Jonathan Kent. He gets written out of the script pretty early, but it's done in a way that flies in the face of an important faucet of Superman's character in the comics. For exactly why, I refer you to Chris Sims' spoiler-filled review over at comicsalliance.com. Also, exactly why did they replace Jimmy Olsen with a random "Jenny." And where's General Sam Lane? He could easily have been worked into the script, and the filmmakers might even make it work it to their advantage by giving a plausible explanation of Lois' being able to go to that crash site which was cordoned off by the military.

Superman's characterization also gets a somewhat short stick. In this movie, we see Superman steal someone's clothes, take a swig of beer, and then does something which I will not reveal because it is such a major spoiler, but if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. Jeremy Jahns argues in his reviews that it was the only thing Superman could do in that situation, and that Supes felt really bad about it, but I say again, why? Why make a story where Superman does this thing which is the antithesis to his character in the comics? Why make movie Superman do the thing which (pre-New 52, of course) Superman promised himself that if he did this he would hang up his cape and retire? Again, just... why?

My final problem is with Michael Shannon's General Zod. Sure, the guy sells the idea of a menacing, heartless villain, but he's just not particularly memorable. What with the aforementioned spotlight-stealing that Faora pulled, it's kind of hard for him to stand out among the uniformly grey suited Phantom Zone escapees. To me, he's just another evil bad guy, though to his credit, he's better than Lord Blackwood.

"But wait!" you might say, "what's your take on the whole 'Superman as Space Jesus' thing?" Personally, I understand why the creators might identify Superman as being a Christ metaphor, or even my buddy Nate's view of him as a Moses metaphor, but I share Chris Sims' opinion that Superman is his own thing, and is not meant to be identified with any Biblical figure.

On the whole, this new, "realistic" take on Superman is a loud, raucous, cynical, joyless rampage in cinema which is now being touted as the jumping off point for a World's Finest movie. This film is a decidedly second tier portrayal of Superman which improves on what some of the previous movies (*cough*Superman Returns*cough*) got wrong, but for the most part either repeats other mistakes and invents new ones. To even let a hack like Zack Snyder (director of 300 and Watchmen) near a momentous project such as this speaks volumes of how ineptly this film was handled, similar to the ineptitude with which the first three films of the Burton/Schumacher quadrilogy was handled (Batman and Robin is an underrated gem, so there). And how could it have gotten this bad with Christopher Nolan producing? On the other hand, a stronger sequel might lift it out of the muck, not entirely unlike how Batman Begins was bettered by The Dark Knight. If Lex Luthor makes an appearance (LexCorp's presence was teased multiple times throughout Man of Steel) in that movie, then I might just go see it.

...Then again, maybe not.

RATING: 7/10

Image courtesy of impawards.com