Messages

Brown's performance as the Kurgan ranks as one of the most intimidating movie villains of the eighties. If you wanted a younger and more menacing version of Magneto, Brown's voice and height alone would've qualified him.

I didn't want something too long in my last post.

But since you mention it, one thing I did want to draw attention to is Magneto as envisioned by Lee/Kirby vs. Magneto as interpreted by Claremont.

Lee/Kirby pretty obviously intended Magneto to be Super-Nazi. He's the Superior Man out to bring the world to its knees because he believes his power gives him the right to do so. Considering Lee/Kirby were both Jewish, it makes a lot of sense that the Nazis loomed large in their imaginations. Reading those early Lee/Kirby X-Men issues, it's hard to escape the idea that Magneto is basically Super Hitler. The metaphor of Nazis is barely a metaphor in their approach to the character.

Claremont obviously wanted to go in a different direction. Magneto was as physically imposing as ever. But he had that sympathetic backstory of being a survivor. He knew only too well what mankind was capable of doing to each other and certainly to him. As you know, he sees his war against the human race as a preemptive strike in an inevitable war. His history creates an intriguing irony to the character that he wants to subjugate and ultimately exterminate his would-be exterminators. So, what is the moral difference between him and the people who have persecuted him?

We should also mention McKellan's performance. It's fine for the films that he appeared in. But you are correct when you say that McKellan's Magneto and comic book Magneto have very little in common aside from a name and a backstory. I have become concerned that McKellan's portrayal of the character will "haunt" future live action incarnations. Rather than being the physically imposing powerhouse that Magneto was intended to be (and was consistently drawn as for all or most of his publication history), future live action performances are very likely to somewhat emulate McKellan's casting.

Maybe that's inevitable if his World War II history remains an unbreakable aspect of Magneto's canon?

[-- The Good]

-- The Good
I sort of like the composition going on here. It looks like it could be a comic book cover. Big Giant Threat outside the window. And Superman is so accustomed to this type of thing that he resolutely gets his other business suit on to take care of Big Giant Threat.

I also like the colors in this photo. They pop pretty well. Considering my reintroduction to Superman on film was in that bland, dull publicity photo released from Superman Returns, anything is better than that.

Speaking of colors, I like how colorful the suit is. The SR suit was dully and muddy. I never approved of that wine-colored Fruit Rollup SR cape. So, the coloring on this new suit is right in my wheelhouse.

It LOOKS like the red trunks have been restored, which I think is also a bonus.

-- The Bad
I think I'll always prefer the low collar on the tunic that Snyder favored. It should show a bit of Superman's chest. The high collar seems influenced by The New 52. In fact, the high collar, the piping on the sleeves and chest, the clunky boots, ALL of that seems very New 52 to me. In fact, this uniform seems to be a strange amalgamation of the Earth One uniform, that New 52 uniform and a bit of Kingdom Come thrown in.

I don't think blending those various aesthetics together is creatively successful.

The enterprise looks cheap, like something you'd expect to see in a CW show. In fact, this looks like only a minor upgrade over the Superman outfit Tyler Hoechlin has been running around in for the past several seasons.

I, for one, NEVER needed them to bring the Reeve outfit out of mothballs. You all know me better than that. But I do believe there's a lot of mojo to the idea of a simple Superman outfit. Singer disregarded that. Snyder disregarded that. And now, it sure looks like Gunn is disregarding it too.

I called the red trunks above a bonus. And I stand by that. But I also question if modern audiences will accept them. There are reasons to think they won't. In fact, there are reasons to question Superman's entire box office viability at this point. And that would be my opinion even if comic book cinema wasn't the train wreck that it is today. But considering how the market appears to be shifting, I would've figured the best approach would be to make the most commercial aesthetic possible. And I don't think the red trunks fit into that equation, frankly.

-- The Ugly
Wtf is going on with that bulk? Is it padding or something? It's most noticeable in the shoulders and lower torso. Of all characters, I thought Superman's suit should look as skintight as possible. He is his own armor. Plus, it seems dramatically appropriate to emphasize his muscularity. Padding (or at least a bulky outfit) ruins that aesthetic.

-- Summary
I'm... not overly confident about this outfit. I don't think this is the visual direction that Superman in cinema should be headed into. The confused aesthetic influences, the strangely fitted uniform, the clunky boots, they all fit together to create a deep sense of reluctance on my part.

Yes, I wanted the Snyderverse (starring Cavill as Superman) to continue/be restored. But I was willing to give a reboot a fair shot. I'm not blinded by devotion here. Even so, this uniform design isn't inspiring very much in the way of confidence.

For all I know, Gunn will make the masterpiece Superman film that I've wanted my entire life. But even if he does, I'll still have to find a way to reconcile this suit design instead of celebrate it.

I look back at Dean Cain's Superman uniform from L&C's fourth season. For everything that show was and wasn't, that uniform was consistent with the rest of the series. Specifically, it had a homemade quality to it with a big and highly stylized chest symbol. Just to look at Cain wearing the outfit, you instantly understood something about L&C's approach to Superman as a character AND the tone of the show. Yes, it WAS a simple design. But it was also an effective design.

Gunn's Superman outfit is NOT a simple design. And it also doesn't seem to be a very effective design either.

My reluctance about this film has not been assuaged in the slightest.

I have that issue on my bookcase. Even back then, I disagreed with casting Clancy Brown as Sabretooth. He would've been a great Magneto... if Rutger Hauer has other obligations going on. But Hauer is already accounted for, I love Brown but I don't see much else for him in an X-Men movie.

I thought Singer got it right by casting a wrestler in that role. At 6'9", ~270 lbs and built like a brick $#!+ house, it's hard to argue against Tyler Mane. But if not him, then some other super jacked wrestler should've gotten the gig.

I've often wondered what the thinking was behind this show. Because the nods and similarities to the Sixties show are self-evident. Undeniable, frankly.

But at the same time, depending on how you want to define "dark", this animated show is noticeably darker than the TV show. I watched the entire series start to finish years ago. And off-hand, I can't recall a single sequence ever taking place during the daytime. From memory, literally everything takes place at night. Which the Sixties show obviously differed with as many sequences took place in broad daylight.

Bat-Mite was another challenge. While I've never been particularly fond of the character, he could've fit into the live action show fairly easily. I don't think the tone of the show would've been irrevocably destroyed had Bat-Mite been included. In fact, I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that one reason he was omitted from the show was due to how expensive the character's powers might be for a Sixties TV show to bring in to live action.

But the cartoon's determination to set all (or most?) scenes at night does indicate a desire (on somebody's part) to take Batman in a darker direction.

Were I inclined to put this into some sort of context, my suggestion would be that the TV versions of Batman and Robin had become more active at night because their villains had become more active at night. The Westverse was never going to be very dark. At most, it might become a little poorly lit. But never "dark".

Anyway. Welcome back, btw.

So, it's been a while since SN popped up. Am I the only one who noticed that?

I luvz me some Adam Hughes. Guy's a legend. I have no idea how he makes a living tho since it doesn't look like he does full interiors very often and I can't imagine that covers and pinups pay very much.

But I've always been fond of this one:



I always found it telling that you can identify each character even tho they're dressed fairly identically to each other. Zatanna, Babs and Wonder Woman are easy but the others could've (and should've?) been very hard to distinguish from each other. But somehow, they're not.

And here are some scans from Wizard #45, May 1995. A fairly lengthy interview with Hughes.

I find it amusing that the first mention of Harley that I can ever recall seeing is so lowkey. "Also, the Joker will have a girlfriend called Harley Quinn". From such humble beginnings, she became a real force in the Batman mythos.

Comics Scene #29, October 1992

When I first heard about BTAS when I was 11 or so, I went into it with the assumption that it was going to be a very Filmation or Hanna-Barbera type of thing. And honestly, I was totally okay with that.

But this feature from Comics Scene is the first inkling I ever got that BTAS aspired to be a LOT more than a 20 some odd minute toy commercial with Good Moral Lessons at the end of each episode. I was already excited about the show. But this feature made me a BTAS True Believer very early on.

Also, this is a very Batman-oriented issue of Comics Scene. There are features about BTAS, an interview with Michael Keaton about Batman Returns and an interview with Kelley Jones where he discusses (among other things) Red Rain.

Very enjoyable issue of an underrated comics industry trade publication. I like Wizard as much as the next guy. But Comics Scene had some very high quality interviews and features too.

It's the appeal of esoterica. "Herpa derpa derp, did you know Bob Kane didn't ackchyually create Batman?"

As you say, the issue of credit was VERY hazy back then. Especially since comics were regarded as a fly by night industry that would probably be extinct by 1945 at the latest. That was conventional wisdom in the industry even at the time. Nobody was too worried with who got credit for what since comic book characters were not understood to be gigantic franchise in those days.

Bob Kane negotiated a deal with Vincent Sullivan to create "another Superman", he named and made an initial design for Batman (or Bat-Man, if that works better for anyone), he presented the beginning of his idea to Bill Finger, Bill Finger redesigned the character, Bob Kane then sold the character/concept to Sullivan and Kane then used Bill Finger in what history would probably consider a work for hire capacity.

I'm not trying to minimize Finger's massive contributions. I'm simply saying that Kane did a lot more than collect a paycheck.

Still, if we're going to take a warts and all look at Batman's history, can we start by acknowledging that Bill Finger was hardly a saint (or a victim) (or a martyr) in his own right? The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate was virtually plagiarized from The Shadow pulp 'Partners In Peril'. Bill Finger wrote that. But how much crap does he take for swiping someone else's work?

My point is that crediting solely Bob Kane for Batman's creation had considerable legal accuracy behind it. It might not have been "fair" by modern standards. But by legal standards, it made a lot of sense to give Kane sole credit. I have no problem with crediting Finger as co-creator. By all means, do it.

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

My anticipation for this movie remains strong.