Topics

[Man Against Society]

This is meant to be about anything/everything to do with Rambo, either the character, the film series or whatever else. Now, I realize a certain level of political commentary is woven into the movies and so it's kind of unavoidable. But at the same time, let's try keeping things reasonable with any discussion that might ensue.

What I tell myself is that I don't know if it's possible to save the world. But if it's possible to save the world, it's not my job to save the world. But if it's my job to save the world, I won't save the world by posting a bunch of stupid political bs on the Internet. And neither will you.

Anyway, so I rewatched First Blood tonight. The reason First Blood plays for me better than any of the sequels is because John has a pretty straight forward set of issues. He was plucked up out of nowhere, taught to fight and kill and survive, sent off into a pointless war that he wasn't allowed to win, got booed when he came home and then got abandoned as he tried reentering civilian life. One day, one too many people mouth off to him and he snaps.

Everything that happens in First Blood comes from those simple facts.

John is not presented as a hero so much as the product of a sick society with a fixation on war. John lashes out against a society that would turn men into killers and killers into useless pathetic drifters. The initial fight in the police station was obviously John getting triggered by the worst case of PTSD I've ever seen. But after that episode ends, he's back in his "right" mind. He knows what he's doing and he doesn't let up.

But at the same time, John isn't above showing mercy. He could've easily killed all of the deputies who pursued him into the woods. But he lets them go to prove a point. Teasle (Brian Dennehy) is ultimately the one who escalates the situation into a full blown crisis. John offers Teasle the last miniscule sliver of mercy he has left. And he utterly wastes it.

There's a school of thought that Vietnam was such a bizarre, insane, tragic episode in America's history that Americans needed a lot of years to process the full magnitude of its horror. Things like First Blood, Apocalypse Now and other things are symptoms of America trying (and arguably failing) to make sense of the nonsensical.

Me, well, as a Millennial, Vietnam doesn't have the same truck with me that it does previous generations. For that reason, I prefer to rise above the weeds a bit and process First Blood as a more general Man Against Society conflict. A very flawed and damaged man. First Blood plays for me for generally the same reason Falling Down does; they're both dense stories about a man at the end of his rope who finally gets pushed over the edge and lashes out. These are not heroic, honorable men. And yet, it's difficult to not have some kind of sympathy for them.

All of this is a long way of saying that First Blood has a heart and a purpose that the sequels just plain lack or, hell, don't even aspire to.

The older I get, the less use I seem to have for sequels. Not for the first time I find myself thinking that First Blood is better off as a one-and-done story rather than the opening salvo of an ongoing film series.

That's not to say that the sequels don't have merit. There are some good ideas going on there. But in First Blood, the bullets and the explosions come from a place of anger, conflict, disgust and, finally, personal vengeance. Whereas, in the sequels, the carnage is meant to be part of the marketing appeal. That's not a bad thing but it's also not really what First Blood was up to in showing John basically singlehandedly take down a small town all by himself.

Anyway.

[2]

I'll flesh this out more over time.

But from the jump, I'm aware of three major influences with Snyder's MOS.

In chronological order, first comes John Byrne's Man Of Steel miniseries from 1986. Apropos title considering that Byrne's MOS served the same essential function as Snyder's MOS. Namely, to reboot the character. Everything that went before was nuked out of canon in both MOS's. That's worth something all by itself. But there are clear similarities between Byrne's depiction of Krypton and Snyder's. Also, it's implied in MOS #01 that Clark had spent quite a few years as a drifter and anonymous hero, much as he did in Snyder's MOS. More to follow on this when I feel like doing it.

Next is Mark Waid's Superman- Birthright. The idea of Kryptonians flying on bird-like creatures shown in Snyder's MOS has precedent in Birthright #01. Ditto the Superman symbol meaning "Hope" as opposed to the El family crest. There's also the big climax of Earth being invaded by Kryptonians. In Birthright, it's a false-flag operation while in MOS, it's an actual thing. But the basic concepts exist in both works.

Finally (and arguably most egregiously) is Superman- Earth One vol. 01. Now, there are limits to how much of this I'm willing to buy into. I can accept that Byrne's MOS and Birthright were both intentional influences on Snyder's MOS. But Earth One is a tougher nut to crack because Snyder was announced as the director of MOS in October 2010. The same month Earth One v1 released. Presumably, David Goyer had written at least a draft or two of MOS which Snyder reviewed before signing on the dotted line. I also presume that Snyder was hired prior to October 2010 but WB sat on the news for a while, as would be customary. So it's entirely possible that Snyder was locked in as director before Earth One v1 came out. If so, then you'd think Snyder would've already had basic ideas of what the movie would be and how it would look by the time he was officially announced as the director.

For those reasons, I have a hard time believing that Snyder would've had the time, opportunity or inclination to read much of Earth One v1.

And yet, there are quite a lot of similarities between Snyder's MOS and Earth One v1. Several of which can be viewed at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2xnwGU400dPf-rWpBdAXUzfLe3SbP2a/view

Still, it should be noted that the above .pdf cites similarities between Snyder's MOS and Earth One v2. The second Earth One volume came out in October 2012 while MOS came out in March 2013. The battle in Smallville from MOS filmed in August 2011, almost a full year before E1V2 was released. Therefore, it's basically impossible for Earth One v2 to have been an influence on MOS as the .pdf file suggests. The timeline is simply unworkable. Further, it's highly doubtful that MOS could've influenced E1V2 since artist Shane Davis was probably already halfway through the project by August 2011.

And yet, the similarities between E1V2 and MOS are still apparent anyway. So it's at least possible that the similarities between E1V1 and MOS are coincidental as well.

But then again, we've got an awful lot of coincidence and random chance piling up around here. So hmm.

I'm not aware of Snyder or Goyer making any public statements regarding Earth One (aside from Goyer's short blurb on the E1V1 back cover) so it's tough to say whether or not Snyder + Goyer truly were deeply influenced by the first volume or not. The timing doesn't really fit but the similarities and coincidences are freaking staggering. For his own part, Davis had denied being influenced by Snyder, which seems unnecessary and obvious but he's done it anyway.

So in the end, idk what to think. Goyer said that Snyder made 98% of the film as he envisioned it. His Superman movie idea goes back to 2008, which again calls the entire timeline into question.

More specific examples and screen caps will follow whenever I get around to it.

[JUSTICE]

Been reading a lot of Shadow comics lately and even a few old Gibson pulps and having an absolute blast.

I love Batman. But even I didn't know just how much of Batman had been plagiarized from The Shadow. The roots go deep and Bob Kane is not the sole offender. He may not even be the worst offender.

Razor does a pretty good job of laying out some of what was stolen from The Shadow.

https://youtu.be/LgU_TwMZgYA

Another interesting note is that in his prime, The Shadow was bigger and more popular than Batman, the MCU and all that other stuff. They totally can't even hold a candle to The Shadow's popularity in his prime.

Right now, I'd recommend basically anything Matt Wagner has done with The Shadow. Very enjoyable stuff.

Less enjoyable was the miniseries written by Cullen Bunn and illustrated by Giovanni Timpano. There are some kind of wonky moments, esp in the final issue. The Shadow's dialogue is a bit too goofy. In fact, several bits of dialogue are a little too self-aware for a Shadow story, if you ask me.

Where I'm at right now with my fandom, The Shadow hits more of what I want from a gritty night avenger than Batman. The Shadow is almost an elemental force dispensing raw justice with twin .45's. No silly teenage sidekicks, no fancy schmancy souped up car, just swift, brutal, bloody, bullet-riddled JUSTICE. That is more enticing to me atm.

Glanced around and couldn't find an existing thread. So here we go.

For me, my Batman's canon begins with Year One and chronologically runs through to 2003, concluding with Hush. Hush is Batman's series finale, imo.

And yet, I couldn't resist picking up Three Jokers #01. And I must say, pretty solid. Geoff Johns is invested in the story, the art is done by somebody who looks like they actually care (which is not necessarily a given anymore) and, in general, it's a quality item.

Not making any guarantees about the remainder of the series. Could be great, could be p00p, I have no idea. But #01 is worth checking out.

(srsly tho, Jason Todd is dead and he never came back to life, that's my canon, dammit)

[BUSINESS]

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/dc-comics-layoffs-bob-harras-brian-cunningham

DC Comics has reportedly experienced a major shake-up, with editor-in-chief Bob Harras and several other editors among the employees laid off and Jim Lee removed from his publishing role. ComicBook.com has learned that several employees including Harras, editors Mark Doyle, Brian Cunningham, and Andy Khouri, VP of marketing Jonah Weiland, senior VP Hank Kanalz, and VP of global publishing initiatives and digital strategy Bobbie Chase are all out of the publisher. Lee remains at the company as DC's Chief Creative Officer, but ComicBook.com has learned that he no longer holds the title of publisher. Lee's new role will be to act as a liaison between DC and other brands of Warner Media. ComicBook.com has also learned that Warner Bros is in talks to bring in a new general manager "from the world of esports" to lead the division, but talks have not yet finalized. More cuts are also expected. ComicBook.com has reached out to DC Comics for comment but has not received a reply as of press time.

Alternately, I'm sadistically happy about this and utterly heartbroken.

I've been predicting the demise of DC Comics as we knew it for a long time now. And on Monday, we took a giant step closer to the end of DC.

Nothing can save them at this point. Whatever their fate might be, it can't be avoided anymore. Two years ago? Maybe it was possible to change things. But not anymore.

In other threads, I've said that AT&T is a BUSINESS. They don't care about your wackadoo agenda or your social engineering. They only care about lots and lots of profit. DC as a comic book publisher has no future under that type of regime.

[is]

Star Trek is so woke these days that it's just unbearable. So I started watching The Orville. So far, it's not as humanistic as TOS was but it's still pretty good. It's topical at times without being ideological. Which is like TOS. Y'know, that as opposed to the progressive screed that Trek has devolved into in recent times.

When people say The Orville is kind of like TNG fanfic, I can understand what they mean. But it's obviously different enough to avoid legal issues. And honestly, the differences between The Orville and TNG tend to benefit The Orville, imo. But yes, you can't really miss the similarities to TNG. It's even got a lot of old TNG cast and crew working behind the scenes. So there's some pretty good authenticity going there. Very much welcome, I think.

Anyway. All in all, not a bad little show. I mean, it's not great. But not bad either! I'm only in the first season so who knows what's to come? But all in all, I recommend it to Trek fans who are looking for an alternative.

[BECAUSE]

This is a trend I think we should expect to see more of. Whether Keaton ultimately comes back or not, history has had a chance to speak on the Burton movies in general and BR in particular. In retrospect, people mostly dig it BECAUSE of how weird and off-beat it is. If it was more corporate and focus-grouped, it wouldn't be experiencing the affection that's going on right now. At least, I don't think so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9v9bC3R9oA

Neat video, check it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMcOX9RMmQY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4n_XdQC4mM

The commentary on how under-used the classic rogues are is worth it alone.

I must say, I tuned out of Batman comics a long time ago. Denny O'Neil once said that Batman has not become a bad character. Merely that he has "evolved beyond my [O'Neil's] sensibility". I feel much the same. My era of Batman pretty much concluded with Hush. That's Batman's series finale afaic.

However, the YouTuber comments extensively on the pre-2002 era as well and I must say that I can't disagree with him too much.

Interested to hear y'all's thoughts, particularly SN.

We've been predicting (and somewhat tracking) the reevaluation which Schumacher's films have experienced over the last 15'ish years. This YouTuber is catching up to us a little bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKnGolObx0k

Warning: If you love Snyder's Batman stuff, you need to have your shields up a little bit to watch this video. But otherwise, this guy gives a pretty warm and sincere reappraisal of Schumacher's films. Worth checking out.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/the-matrix-new-movie-keanu-reeves-lana-wachowski-writing-directing-1202674278

So this is a thing that happened. A new Matrix film. Official announcement and all.

A few months ago, it came out that the Wachowskis were closing down their production studio because of a lack of projects to work on. Might this somehow be related to that? Who can say?

Either way, I've flip-flopped a lot on the Matrix trilogy over the years. I think I'll always like the first one. Those sequels though...

A fascinating look at WB's corporate archive and the project to restore a B89 suit. Worth a watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm5zjxSrx6g

[The Crimesmith]

I love The Crimesmith from Batman #443-#444. This is one of those fun little two-part stories that history has already forgotten but which will always hold a special place in my heart.

The basic shtick of it is the Crimesmith plans out crimes and robberies which other people pull off. In exchange, he guts a small cut of the loot and the criminals themselves get an easy job. The beauty of the scheme is that the actual robbers don't know who they're working for and it's usually different robbers who take the contract so there's no single person to associate with this M.O., which makes it even harder to catch the actual mastermind.

But then Batman shows up.

Marv Wolfman is one of those writers who hasn't written as much Batman stuff as you'd think. And that's a real shame because I like his take on the character. Batman #443 kicks off with Batman's methods being explained to Tim (who is still in training to become Robin) at the same time that Batman demonstrates his methods. It's just about exactly how Batman would have to operate in order to survive his job.

Another cool thing is seeing Bruce as the semi-famous businessman and ladies' man. Sometimes Bruce is portrayed in public either as a corporate dilettante and other times he's a master businessman. Wolfman has a better way of handling it in my opinion.

I recommend really all of Wolfman's Batman work. Well, maybe not so much Year Three. But the rest? Gold. And in particular, The Crimesmith is a criminally underrated story.

[REALLY]

Couldn't find an existing Jessica Jones thread. If one exists, feel free to merge this thread with that one.

Just finished season 03. I enjoy this show primarily for the portrayal of Jessica and the performance of Krysten Ritter. I'll go out on a limb and say that those two features are probably the best elements of the show. At certain times, they've even be the show's sole redeeming qualities.

Specifically, Trish. I can't remember ever liking Trish. Even back in season 01, I found her annoying. As season 01 progressed, my thoughts never changed about her. Getting into season 02, I started thinking that if Jessica just dropped Trish off a building, most of her problems would vanish all by themselves.

In season 03, Jessica literally does drop Trish off a building but that's not enough anymore to stop the wretch's reign of terror.

Thing is, I get the idea that the narrative was trying to make viewers love and care about Trish. But considering that all she ever did was screw things up for everybody else, it was hard to experience anything but loathing for her. The actress plays the role well, don't get me wrong. But the character is just a vile wench of a human being.

Still, Jessica Jones as a show staked out the "gritty detective drama" corner of the Netflixverse. The cancellation of Daredevil will always be what hurts the most. But man, I'm REALLY going to miss Jessica Jones.

But yeah, Trish sucks, no doubts there.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-robin-at-20-joel-schumacher-more-reveal-what-happened-1014972

This is a pretty informative article. It talks a bit about the conception of, production of and subsequent failure of B&R. It's not sarcastic or snarky. It takes a pretty even-handed approach.

One criticism I have about the movie is that it came about a year too early. The writer concurs. I think debuting in 1997 never allowed people time to completely rinse Batman Forever out of their mouths before getting force-fed a new movie. The creative team behind the movie and the public simply weren't ready for a new Batman film at that time. One extra year could've made all the difference.

We'll never know.

I missed all of these movies in theaters for various reasons and ended up catching them on home video.

I spent this week watching the entire trilogy and I must say that I rather enjoy these films. They're dense, character-driven, performance-driven and script-driven. I understand that Night has been polarizing, especially for the last decade and a half or so. I'm not one to defend most of his work. But I've always found merit in Unbreakable. And, now, Split and Glass as well.

I can understand disliking these films. They're not for everybody. But I'm at a point where anything comic book-related that doesn't depend on these huge multi-million dollar CG effects mega setpieces is automatically interesting to me.

Obviously these characters are stand-ins for more famous characters. David is a Superman figure, Elijah is a Lex figure and I think The Horde is meant to be a Doomsday figure. The layers of all these characters, their twists and turns all make for fascinating cinema, imo.

Not to spoil anything just yet but the climax of Glass in particular subverts audience expectations in what I think is an interesting way. So often, people talk about "subverting expectations" as though it's a positive thing, ipso facto. But Night does it in a clever way here that wraps up the story cleanly while also implying the creation of a totally new paradigm.

No, I wouldn't have made those creative decisions. But I'm kind of glad that he did.

And seriously, James McAvoy gives what I can only describe as bravura performances in Split and Glass.

In this world of comic book movies awash in hundred million dollar marketing budgets and flashy CGI, it's kind of a relief to find a few comic book movies with low budgets that depend entirely on performance and writing to make their point.

[meant]

Can't believe there's not already a thread for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK6mDZGNjcg

I never needed to be persuaded about the merits of the 60's tv show. I've been a fan ever since reruns started airing on The Family Channel back in the 80's. And yet, apart from the movie, I haven't really watched much of the show in last, oh, maybe twenty years or so. Partly that was lack of availability.

But the show is out there now. And about a week ago, I noticed that season 01 was selling on iTunes for $4.99. There was no way I could pass up such a good deal.

Rewatching the Joker episodes now... but man, I never needed to be told how brilliant Romero was in the role. But in case you forgot, he was firing on all cylinders from the very start. There's a mania and sincere malevolence to this Joker. It alternated with more lighthearted stuff like attempting to corrupt Gotham City's youth with "easy living" in order to push them into crime later in their lives. Which is evil, yes, but hardly on the same level as strapping Batman and Robin to an electric chair.

When he attempted to kill Batman and Robin, he wasn't kidding around. He meant it.

But at the same time, his vocation was criminal comedy and he never lost sight of the fact that as much as anything else, he was out to steal a buck. Romero's Joker never killed anybody on screen that I can recall but that wasn't for lack of trying. He was probably the most deadly and dangerous villain on the show.

And yet, somehow Romero could play him in a sympathetic way. Evil he might be but you can't help enjoying his antics a little bit.

Romero clearly had a ball playing the character and I get the idea that the Joker was something he looked back at fondly later in his life. He had a blast and that's obvious from watching virtually any of his scenes.

I like all the Jokers. Nicholson, Ledger, Leto and, from the looks of things, Phoenix all have a special place in my heart. I can't call any of them definitive because I love all of them so much.

But Romero was seriously locked into SOMETHING and his joy playing the role is infectious.

[Rah rah, Girl Power]

Not sure how this thread will play out in a movie forum dedicated to comics, comic movies and specifically Batman.

But over the past few years, I've nursed a burgeoning fandom of the Halloween franchise. Some movies are better than others, sure. But in the horror world, Halloween is a far stronger performer creatively than the great majority of its competition.

I wanted to see Halloween 2018 in theaters but the moment passed me by. Life happens.

The continuity in play is that Halloween 2018 is the new Halloween II (if you want it to be). I don't need a Halloween film to be perfect. We all know what the best Halloween movie is. Since there's no way to ever top the original, the best any sequel can hope for is to follow the spirit and tradition of the original. Anything more than that is probably impossible.

On that basis, I rather enjoy Halloween 2018. It's not immune to today's agenda-mongering. But I suppose the saving grace is that this whole Rah rah, Girl Power thing is that such a thing is hardly foreign to the Halloween series. So if there's an agenda there, it sort of blends in to the history and traditions of the series.

The movie isn't perfect. I think it errs on the side of humanizing The Shape a bit too much. Carpenter's original walked the line perfectly, creating ambiguity about whether he's somehow paranormal or if he's just human. Either interpretation or a mix of the two can be completely valid. But I don't think that's quite as true of the 2018 film. The film more clearly suggests an all- or mostly human framework for The Shape.

Either that works for you or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, am I supposed to tell you you're wrong? Because I can't.

All in all, H2018 is worth seeing. But the canon of Halloween for me begins and ends with the original Halloween film. The various sequels might be interesting in their own right but the original is in a class by itself.

[It's Superman]

For better or for worse, the DCEU is a train wreck. We can assign blame for that however we want but the fact remains. Worse, and for reasons which I sincerely don't believe are entirely WB's fault, Marvel has a virtual monopoly on continuity-laden, shared universe type stuff.

The damage is done. So at this point, I say that WB should go their own way now. Specifically, why bother having interconnected movies at all? Why not let all the DC characters go in their own direction(s)? Why not allow each movie (or franchise) be its own thing?

What if WB made a live action adaptation of The Laughing Fish? Do it up right as a period piece set in the 70's in the style of New Hollywood/American New Wave. Put that comic book on film (or digital video, anyway), more or less. Reimagine is as more of a stand alone piece where Batman finds out the Joker is on the loose, poisoning fish, etc. It's been a long time since wide audiences have seen Bruce choose between his calling as Batman and a normal life with the woman he loves. Silver represents a completely valid choice Bruce can make while the Joker represents the life path which will eventually be Bruce's undoing. Explore why somebody would choose something as insane as being Batman when a viable alternative (ie, Silver St. Cloud) is on the table.

Do a Superman movie set in the 1930's. You can use that It's Superman novel as inspiration if you want. Sort of a Tom-DeHaven-meets-Max-Fleischer-in-live-action type of thing. Part period piece/Capra film, part screwball comedy, part vintage early or mid-1930's sci-fi piece. This could be interesting. The Kents are dead so Clark heads out for the big city to make a difference in the only ways he knows how. But how can even his amazing abilities overcome mankind's darkest tendencies?

A John Stewart Green Lantern movie set in the 80's could be amazing. Set it up that Stewart is still recovering from his traumatic experiences in Vietnam when he's selected to be a Green Lantern. But all is not as it seems and before he knows it, John finds himself in a Watergate-in-outer-space type of thing with the Guardians, who are being subverted from within by persons unknown and it becomes Stewart's job to get to the bottom of it. But is he stable enough for the job?

How about Martian Manhunter in the 1950's as a throwback film noir thing? Venetian blinds, deep shadows, voice-over narration, a femme fatale, the whole program. J'onn is every bit as much an outsider to that world as us and he serves sort of as our guide to Hell as he investigates a murder mystery in this strange new world he finds himself in. J'onn has more or less survived the apocalypse on his own planet and he's absolutely befuddled by the concept of murder. Explore that. How does someone who's lucky to even be alive cope with having to live with people who have no idea how good they have it?

A Barry Allen Flash movie set in the 60's could be tons of fun. It might be kind of neat for The Flash to gain his powers and get pulled in to some sort of hare-brained government scheme to use his speed to spy on the Soviets or something. Barry always struck me as a joiner. If pressed, he would work with the government. But when he zooms over to Smolensk or Moscow or wherever he's going, maybe he discovers the mission he accepted is not exactly what he signed up for? Before too long, he finds himself torn between duty to his country vs. what he KNOWS is the right thing to do. Idk, something like that.

And hey, imagine Pre-Crisis Power Girl and The Huntress on Earth-2 in a kinda sorta Buddy Cop movie. This might a good entry point for wide audiences for those two characters. And none of this Helena Bertinelli stuff either. We're talking about good old Helena Wayne, daughter of Bruce Wayne here. Go for an over-the-top science-fantasy, EARTH-2 type of tone for the movie.

Ages ago, Vertigo published Sandman Mystery Theatre starring Wesley Dodds in gritty, neo-noir types of stories. Why not do a Sandman movie along those lines? Set it in the modern day as doddering old Wesley operates as a sort of PI type of superhero. Gas mask, the gas gun, the long coat, the whole thing. He's too old for this type of work even though he can't give it up. He's an old man playing a young man's game. What is the price paid for trying to live up to ideals his body is simply too frail to uphold anymore?

Most of these movies could probably be done on a sub-$150 million budget, they won't compete directly with Marvel and they can existing independently of each other. And who knows, they could burnish a few DC properties in dire need of re-invigoration.

But even all of the above fail, so what? At least they're original.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-amazon-1202606519

"Talks" are happening. So let's not make this into more than it is. But if this is happening... I dunno. I mean, I'm going through a major time Tolkien fixation at the moment. Been reading his stuff, watched some of the movies, even tracked down a couple of fan films.

My concern, though, is that Hollywood (of which Amazon is technically a part at this point) always makes sure to insert certain ideas or concepts into their movies and shows, especially lately. The LOTR movies were lucky enough to escape that because they were made before that obnoxious stuff became all but official policy. But any new Tolkien project is likely to include at least two or three of the things that make modern Hollywood suck.

So I'm hopeful... but also a little fearful.