Because it has finally been shown at Wondercon, I feel a bit more comfortable posting my review of Justice League: New Frontier here. This was originally posted at my livejournal, but since work is kicking me and Chris' ass lately (we will be covering Wizard World LA so look forward to that) it can't hurt to give this blog a kick in the pants.
And yes, there are spoilers. Continue at your own risk.
I am in no way capable of being critical over the JL: New Frontier movie. On a purely shallow note, the credit sequence made me swoon, and the fact that they even attempted the lush texture of the original forgives pretty much everything else. While the voice-acting saps the material of the original subtlety and nuance, I don't really care - I've been asking for ages for someone to attempt a more mature animated feature, one that figured "adult" material required something more than just T&A and by god, New Frontier is trying. Just because the voice actors aren't necessarily familiar with the medium yet (one of the many risks involved with getting big name "real" actors" for projects like these), New Frontier has the good graces to not be Superman/Doomsday (which I enjoyed, for entirely different reasons too inappropriate to go into here.)
New Frontier tries to be true to the original material, tries to emulate the tone, the feel, the style, and along with the effort comes a degree of success that rivals most other literary-film adaptations even if it never fully succeeds.
...and to be honest, like I said, I'm too much of a fan to watch this film critically and I'm not going to. This is one of those type of projects where knowing that they tried to be true to the source, and only came up short because the medium just isn't there yet almost, almost makes up for what didn't/couldn't work. I say "medium", but I mean the distinctly Western kind; anime, I feel, benefits from a degree of acceptance as a genuine medium regardless of the age the viewer that Western animation is still working towards. It doesn't fall short from lack of respect of the original material which is almost good enough.
Yes, I'm pretty much equating enjoyment of the movie with the ability to appreciate the athleticism of the special Olympics. Dudes, just work with me here.
Compacting a work that was originally experienced over a number of months is impossible to fully service in an hour and a half film and instead of the subtle grace of the original work, every ounce of meaning within the original work is telegraphed on pretty much every level of the film. Like pretty much any long-form piece of work, the material is always better serviced by equally long-form storytelling, never mind the medium.
It doesn't quite escape the self-seriousness that most super-hero adaptations can't quite shake (lets be honest, it's in the nature of the genre, the printed page manages to mitigate most of it) but it never veers into camp in a futile attempt to avoid the inevitable and I damn well appreciate it. I could go on, but I'm already running low on my pretending I have things to say instead of just fan-girling resources as it is.
Yeah, reading over this post, I realize this is mostly coming across as faint praise within a sea of caveats, but I really did enjoy it. Yeah, the book was better, but that's pretty much always the case when a work moves from one medium to another.
God, I've become my mother -I can't just give a compliment, I have to preface it with "if only..." I should just give into my genetic fate.
How about this: Wonder Woman's boots, how fucking hard did those rule?
Also, Jeremy Sisto's Batman, I like you, you can stay.
PS: SLAM. SLAM BRADLEY. I TAKE WHAT I CAN GET.
And yes, there are spoilers. Continue at your own risk.
I am in no way capable of being critical over the JL: New Frontier movie. On a purely shallow note, the credit sequence made me swoon, and the fact that they even attempted the lush texture of the original forgives pretty much everything else. While the voice-acting saps the material of the original subtlety and nuance, I don't really care - I've been asking for ages for someone to attempt a more mature animated feature, one that figured "adult" material required something more than just T&A and by god, New Frontier is trying. Just because the voice actors aren't necessarily familiar with the medium yet (one of the many risks involved with getting big name "real" actors" for projects like these), New Frontier has the good graces to not be Superman/Doomsday (which I enjoyed, for entirely different reasons too inappropriate to go into here.)
New Frontier tries to be true to the original material, tries to emulate the tone, the feel, the style, and along with the effort comes a degree of success that rivals most other literary-film adaptations even if it never fully succeeds.
...and to be honest, like I said, I'm too much of a fan to watch this film critically and I'm not going to. This is one of those type of projects where knowing that they tried to be true to the source, and only came up short because the medium just isn't there yet almost, almost makes up for what didn't/couldn't work. I say "medium", but I mean the distinctly Western kind; anime, I feel, benefits from a degree of acceptance as a genuine medium regardless of the age the viewer that Western animation is still working towards. It doesn't fall short from lack of respect of the original material which is almost good enough.
Yes, I'm pretty much equating enjoyment of the movie with the ability to appreciate the athleticism of the special Olympics. Dudes, just work with me here.
Compacting a work that was originally experienced over a number of months is impossible to fully service in an hour and a half film and instead of the subtle grace of the original work, every ounce of meaning within the original work is telegraphed on pretty much every level of the film. Like pretty much any long-form piece of work, the material is always better serviced by equally long-form storytelling, never mind the medium.
It doesn't quite escape the self-seriousness that most super-hero adaptations can't quite shake (lets be honest, it's in the nature of the genre, the printed page manages to mitigate most of it) but it never veers into camp in a futile attempt to avoid the inevitable and I damn well appreciate it. I could go on, but I'm already running low on my pretending I have things to say instead of just fan-girling resources as it is.
Yeah, reading over this post, I realize this is mostly coming across as faint praise within a sea of caveats, but I really did enjoy it. Yeah, the book was better, but that's pretty much always the case when a work moves from one medium to another.
God, I've become my mother -I can't just give a compliment, I have to preface it with "if only..." I should just give into my genetic fate.
How about this: Wonder Woman's boots, how fucking hard did those rule?
Also, Jeremy Sisto's Batman, I like you, you can stay.
PS: SLAM. SLAM BRADLEY. I TAKE WHAT I CAN GET.
12/12: Elaboration
I want to elaborate a little more on what I said the other day.
After suggesting that box office receipts rarely equal interest in the core material it really got me thinking. Why should a movie cause interest in a comic book? Just because you liked watching V for Vendetta doesn't mean you'll enjoy reading the comic book it came from. Just because 300 was "the shit" doesn't mean the book is any better.
It's just different.
You shouldn't have to be an avid Resident Evil player because you saw the movie. For that matter, there is no science to prove that just because you saw a movie about Polar Bears fighting God you're gonna become an atheist, you might be just as likely to want to be a polar bear. But to be honest, if people are stupid enough to think a Nicole Kidman movie will turn into people atheist, there's bound to be people out there stupid enough to turn atheist because of a movie. Frankly, this all reminds me of the 'does violent music/movies/video games make kids violent?' argument.
Short answer: yes, it introduces new ideas to people that they are not typically aware of. Long Answer: No, people are inclined to act upon a variety of reasons and no amount of Movies, or hours of video games, or listening to violent music will be the sole contributor to these actions. I don't know what was going through the head of that kid who shot up that mall in Omaha last week. Yes he was disturbed, yes what he did was an intolerable evil, but i don't believe that music/movies/games made him do that.
Belief is a strong thing. Whether your a Christian, a jew, an atheist or one of the many other numerous beliefs out there, it is a personal decision on how and what you believe. If your so naive that a movie about witches in the north pole can change your core beliefs you have problems to begin with. But also i can't help but think these protesting Christians and Catholics have a problem. I doubt the majority of the outraged have actually read the books, and if they can be shaken up by one person's fictional tale of witches fighting a church they must really have a weak hold in the strength of their beliefs.
Is a movie turning our kids into faithless heavens? NO. Are the way many members of a particular organized religion acting, forcing their beliefs and way of lives on others, believing they are right about all subjects because of an infallible and uncompromising deity that ultimately contradicts with many of the freedoms we are afforded in this country off putting people and causing an increased distrust of organized religion? Who knows? And for that matter, who cares? Some people are so set in their ways they can find sin in a Pat Boone concert.
The point remains: it better be a damn good movie if it makes you do anything out of your status-quo, whether that be buying a comic book, shooting innocent people, or changing your whole perspective on life... and the truth is they just don't make movies that good anymore.
After suggesting that box office receipts rarely equal interest in the core material it really got me thinking. Why should a movie cause interest in a comic book? Just because you liked watching V for Vendetta doesn't mean you'll enjoy reading the comic book it came from. Just because 300 was "the shit" doesn't mean the book is any better.
It's just different.
You shouldn't have to be an avid Resident Evil player because you saw the movie. For that matter, there is no science to prove that just because you saw a movie about Polar Bears fighting God you're gonna become an atheist, you might be just as likely to want to be a polar bear. But to be honest, if people are stupid enough to think a Nicole Kidman movie will turn into people atheist, there's bound to be people out there stupid enough to turn atheist because of a movie. Frankly, this all reminds me of the 'does violent music/movies/video games make kids violent?' argument.
Short answer: yes, it introduces new ideas to people that they are not typically aware of. Long Answer: No, people are inclined to act upon a variety of reasons and no amount of Movies, or hours of video games, or listening to violent music will be the sole contributor to these actions. I don't know what was going through the head of that kid who shot up that mall in Omaha last week. Yes he was disturbed, yes what he did was an intolerable evil, but i don't believe that music/movies/games made him do that.
Belief is a strong thing. Whether your a Christian, a jew, an atheist or one of the many other numerous beliefs out there, it is a personal decision on how and what you believe. If your so naive that a movie about witches in the north pole can change your core beliefs you have problems to begin with. But also i can't help but think these protesting Christians and Catholics have a problem. I doubt the majority of the outraged have actually read the books, and if they can be shaken up by one person's fictional tale of witches fighting a church they must really have a weak hold in the strength of their beliefs.
Is a movie turning our kids into faithless heavens? NO. Are the way many members of a particular organized religion acting, forcing their beliefs and way of lives on others, believing they are right about all subjects because of an infallible and uncompromising deity that ultimately contradicts with many of the freedoms we are afforded in this country off putting people and causing an increased distrust of organized religion? Who knows? And for that matter, who cares? Some people are so set in their ways they can find sin in a Pat Boone concert.
The point remains: it better be a damn good movie if it makes you do anything out of your status-quo, whether that be buying a comic book, shooting innocent people, or changing your whole perspective on life... and the truth is they just don't make movies that good anymore.
Still wondering why people are mad at the Golden Compass for teaching our children atheist ideals and why no one cares that The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe is blatantly shoving Christian allegories down our throats. I know that the movie has been toned down from the overtly anti-secular-Catholic Church sentiments in the book, but many still feel that the movie will be a "gateway drug" to the actual books. The truth is, if people loved the books that movies are spawned from as much as the movies themselves the comic book business wouldn't be as distressed as it is today. Box Office receipts rarely, if ever, equal increased sales at the book store. Harry Potter was the exception that proved the rule, and while I am no fan of that series I was glad that there was a book series that could actually make kids excited to read. While I'm on the subject, I have yet to read any studies that show an increase of witchcraft practising that corresponds to the popularity of the Harry Potter books.
We are no longer a nation of readers (not that I'm sure we ever were)... we would much rather watch than do, play than act, and when we do read it is usually involving celebrities and their various shenanigans. While there is a generous part of the population who do indeed take pleasure out of a well written book, the fact remains that most people would rather just wait for the movie. And even after we hear that the "book was much better" by our pretentious friend, we can take comfort in the knowledge that we only spent 2 hours watching the movie, instead of a week reading that we could have been watching TMZ.
We are no longer a nation of readers (not that I'm sure we ever were)... we would much rather watch than do, play than act, and when we do read it is usually involving celebrities and their various shenanigans. While there is a generous part of the population who do indeed take pleasure out of a well written book, the fact remains that most people would rather just wait for the movie. And even after we hear that the "book was much better" by our pretentious friend, we can take comfort in the knowledge that we only spent 2 hours watching the movie, instead of a week reading that we could have been watching TMZ.
03/12: Deconstructing Namor
When I think about why Namor is my favorite superhero his recent comics are not the first things that come to mind. In fact, anything after the Tales to Astonish by Everret and Kirby are kind of a drab portrayal of the Crowned Prince of Atlantis. I mean even the super powerful, insane Ultimate Submariner was just kind of lame.
I think I first fell in love with Namor after watching a beat-up VHS of the old 1960's cartoon. My dad had found the old Marvel cartoons all at a swap meet or something, the Spider-man and iron man series included. Most importantly they were all in Spanish. There was something mesmerizing about the Namor show in Spanish, almost like you didn't even need to understand the show to understand how much of a prick Namor is... his refusal to take anyone's advice, his ignorance to studying an enemy, his blatant disregard for the safety of others. Being an asshole is a universal language. But even though he was a serious douchbag he always seemed to come out on top (except if he was fighting the Fantastic Four, which is a completely different matter). I really think Namor gave me a positive message as a kid, as long as you're rich, powerful, and have reasonable upper body strength people will fear you and, on rare occasions, consider leaving their super intelligent, stretchable scientist husbands for you. And that's why Namor was the first realistic super hero role model for kids... he wasn't a momma's boy, do-gooder like Superman, he wasn't a jingoistic, flag waver like Captain America, or dark-brooding billioner who like to spend his time with young boys a la Michael Jackson or Batman. He was an heir, he was a douche, he was born with these powers that he didn't have to earn, and no matter what bad thing happened to him things would always come up roses. He was an early day Paris Hilton, except Namor usually wears more clothes.
In honor of my childhood, watch this
I have no idea what's going on here, but I do know that Namor doesn't lift a damn finger to help the world in peril... he even goes as far to steal a giant rotating stone head alongside Dr. Doom. Also there was a Captain America cameo, but if you blinked you missed it.
I think I first fell in love with Namor after watching a beat-up VHS of the old 1960's cartoon. My dad had found the old Marvel cartoons all at a swap meet or something, the Spider-man and iron man series included. Most importantly they were all in Spanish. There was something mesmerizing about the Namor show in Spanish, almost like you didn't even need to understand the show to understand how much of a prick Namor is... his refusal to take anyone's advice, his ignorance to studying an enemy, his blatant disregard for the safety of others. Being an asshole is a universal language. But even though he was a serious douchbag he always seemed to come out on top (except if he was fighting the Fantastic Four, which is a completely different matter). I really think Namor gave me a positive message as a kid, as long as you're rich, powerful, and have reasonable upper body strength people will fear you and, on rare occasions, consider leaving their super intelligent, stretchable scientist husbands for you. And that's why Namor was the first realistic super hero role model for kids... he wasn't a momma's boy, do-gooder like Superman, he wasn't a jingoistic, flag waver like Captain America, or dark-brooding billioner who like to spend his time with young boys a la Michael Jackson or Batman. He was an heir, he was a douche, he was born with these powers that he didn't have to earn, and no matter what bad thing happened to him things would always come up roses. He was an early day Paris Hilton, except Namor usually wears more clothes.
In honor of my childhood, watch this
I have no idea what's going on here, but I do know that Namor doesn't lift a damn finger to help the world in peril... he even goes as far to steal a giant rotating stone head alongside Dr. Doom. Also there was a Captain America cameo, but if you blinked you missed it.
Category: Rants
Posted by: daveexiter
Ok, so we’ve got some new promo pics for Dark Knight.
I think I figured it out. I think I figured out why I don’t like the direction the Joker is going. Follow me here for a minute, ok?
In college, I took a class on the Holocaust, and toward the end of the semester we had a holocaust survivor come in and speak to us. (This is going somewhere, I promise) When we were able to ask questions, I was the first to raise my hand and I asked what Nazis were REALLY like, because all I have is the completely over the top EVIL incarnations I see in movies and TV. He said they were “clean”. He said that was what was the scariest thing about them. That they were “clean”. He said that it boggled the mind that they could commit such atrocities and still care about a pressed suit. It made sense, because how do you carry out something so terrible unless you are organized, unless you command attention with your care and delicacy?
And it hit me that I have the same opinion of the Joker. Sure, he’s bat shit crazy (pun completely intended), but part of the terror is the fact that he looks like he combed his hair for an hour and shined his shoes (sorry Daf, the dusty shoes don't jump out at me anymore) before he decided to go out and kill. It’s never spoken about, I don’t think. Joker doesn’t dwell on the niceties, but they are there. My favorite Joker has posture, poise, comfort, and is almost stoic. That way he has a place to GO when he wants to flip out.
Right now Heath Ledger looks like a celebrity mug shot. His hair, his makeup... it’s just chaotic. Not a fan. If all these shots reflect what he's going to look like after getting a fistfull of Batman at the end of the movie, fine, but if my introduction to Joker is THIS, I'm going to probably have a furrowed brow for most the film.
I think I figured it out. I think I figured out why I don’t like the direction the Joker is going. Follow me here for a minute, ok?
In college, I took a class on the Holocaust, and toward the end of the semester we had a holocaust survivor come in and speak to us. (This is going somewhere, I promise) When we were able to ask questions, I was the first to raise my hand and I asked what Nazis were REALLY like, because all I have is the completely over the top EVIL incarnations I see in movies and TV. He said they were “clean”. He said that was what was the scariest thing about them. That they were “clean”. He said that it boggled the mind that they could commit such atrocities and still care about a pressed suit. It made sense, because how do you carry out something so terrible unless you are organized, unless you command attention with your care and delicacy?
And it hit me that I have the same opinion of the Joker. Sure, he’s bat shit crazy (pun completely intended), but part of the terror is the fact that he looks like he combed his hair for an hour and shined his shoes (sorry Daf, the dusty shoes don't jump out at me anymore) before he decided to go out and kill. It’s never spoken about, I don’t think. Joker doesn’t dwell on the niceties, but they are there. My favorite Joker has posture, poise, comfort, and is almost stoic. That way he has a place to GO when he wants to flip out.
Right now Heath Ledger looks like a celebrity mug shot. His hair, his makeup... it’s just chaotic. Not a fan. If all these shots reflect what he's going to look like after getting a fistfull of Batman at the end of the movie, fine, but if my introduction to Joker is THIS, I'm going to probably have a furrowed brow for most the film.
The question seems to have become a meme, and I'd like to take a stab at it in the blog. It actually came up in the podcast when discussing the absolutely stunning (example of branding gone wrong) MJ statue, but I want to take the chance to work through a couple of issues that have been bothering me:
Wabbitseason picks up one something that has always baffled me about the level of fannish debate when it comes to women IN comics and women who love comics:
There's a large degree of fannish entitlement going on when it comes to comics, specifically the superhero genre. For a medium defined and supported by primarily (at this point) fans, whenever a female fan complains about the treatment of a character or a book the tendency for the male fandom at large is to turn a critical eye and say "why are you complaining so loudly? Why can't you just keep it down?" baffles me. More often then not, those same critical fans have no problem turning to their respective message boards and blogs, and complaining about the treatment of their beloved character or franchise, content in their own, personal fannish entitlement. It's okay when they do it, because they don't have an ebil feminist agenda -they just really, really love [Generic Male Superhero Character].
Hey, guess what? So do girls.
We have the same capacity to enjoy fictional, two-dimensional characters as much as the next fanboy. And when [Equally Generic Female Superhero Character] seems to be getting the short shrift because -lets face it, she's just another pretty face and convenient damsel in distress when the plot seems to be lagging a bit- she's just a side character, she's not that important, that's what she's there for, etc., well... well we tend to get a little steamed.
It's not fair, you see? Because we have the same sort of fannish entitlement like any other fan, and we see the characters we fell in love with and appreciate get short shrifted or abused because she's not important, because she's not the main character, because she's just a girl and superhero comics aren't for girls, that's why there aren't that many female main characters in the first place, so why are you complaining?
Of course, then, I always have to ask the question: why AREN'T superhero comics for girls?
Where in the definition of the genre does it say "Not For Girlish Consumption"?
Wikipedia, the grand arbitrator of all internet debates tells us that a superhero is:
So...so where in the definition, between "feats of courage and nobility" and "abilities beyond those of a normal human being" does it say "Girls aren't really into that sort of thing. No. Really"?
Even traditionally female-dominated fandoms have the same heroic tropes as superhero comics. Sometimes they actually are about superheroes. To say that the idea of the superhero genre itself is not female friendly is absurd and stupid and there's really no polite way to step around it.
And if you tell me that you can't have superhero comics without objectifying women, I have to ask: What is your definition of a hero? Is that your definition of a hero? Someone who doesn't mind women as long as they wear cropped shirts and tight jeans and contort in strange and terrifying positions?
Because if so...well, I can't really argue with that, can I? That's some sick shit right there. I mean, cropped shirts. Really. Is this the 80s?
(serious tangent - what is it with cropped shirts being the definition of casual wear in the superhero genre? Is every artist out there permanently stuck in the 80s? Because I can't remember the last cropped shirt I've seen worn without a healthy dose of irony.)
In short, what do girls want in comics?
Simple: the same thing you do. We want the characters we love be in stories they deserve. Sometimes that involves actually thinking of female characters as people.
I know. It's silly. I blame it on my vagina.
Wabbitseason picks up one something that has always baffled me about the level of fannish debate when it comes to women IN comics and women who love comics:
There's a large degree of fannish entitlement going on when it comes to comics, specifically the superhero genre. For a medium defined and supported by primarily (at this point) fans, whenever a female fan complains about the treatment of a character or a book the tendency for the male fandom at large is to turn a critical eye and say "why are you complaining so loudly? Why can't you just keep it down?" baffles me. More often then not, those same critical fans have no problem turning to their respective message boards and blogs, and complaining about the treatment of their beloved character or franchise, content in their own, personal fannish entitlement. It's okay when they do it, because they don't have an ebil feminist agenda -they just really, really love [Generic Male Superhero Character].
Hey, guess what? So do girls.
We have the same capacity to enjoy fictional, two-dimensional characters as much as the next fanboy. And when [Equally Generic Female Superhero Character] seems to be getting the short shrift because -lets face it, she's just another pretty face and convenient damsel in distress when the plot seems to be lagging a bit- she's just a side character, she's not that important, that's what she's there for, etc., well... well we tend to get a little steamed.
It's not fair, you see? Because we have the same sort of fannish entitlement like any other fan, and we see the characters we fell in love with and appreciate get short shrifted or abused because she's not important, because she's not the main character, because she's just a girl and superhero comics aren't for girls, that's why there aren't that many female main characters in the first place, so why are you complaining?
Of course, then, I always have to ask the question: why AREN'T superhero comics for girls?
Where in the definition of the genre does it say "Not For Girlish Consumption"?
Wikipedia, the grand arbitrator of all internet debates tells us that a superhero is:
So...so where in the definition, between "feats of courage and nobility" and "abilities beyond those of a normal human being" does it say "Girls aren't really into that sort of thing. No. Really"?
Even traditionally female-dominated fandoms have the same heroic tropes as superhero comics. Sometimes they actually are about superheroes. To say that the idea of the superhero genre itself is not female friendly is absurd and stupid and there's really no polite way to step around it.
And if you tell me that you can't have superhero comics without objectifying women, I have to ask: What is your definition of a hero? Is that your definition of a hero? Someone who doesn't mind women as long as they wear cropped shirts and tight jeans and contort in strange and terrifying positions?
Because if so...well, I can't really argue with that, can I? That's some sick shit right there. I mean, cropped shirts. Really. Is this the 80s?
(serious tangent - what is it with cropped shirts being the definition of casual wear in the superhero genre? Is every artist out there permanently stuck in the 80s? Because I can't remember the last cropped shirt I've seen worn without a healthy dose of irony.)
In short, what do girls want in comics?
Simple: the same thing you do. We want the characters we love be in stories they deserve. Sometimes that involves actually thinking of female characters as people.
I know. It's silly. I blame it on my vagina.
