Five Reasons I Hope Jaimie Alexander Is NOT Playing Wonder Woman In Superman/Batman.

SOURCE: Twitter Feed Of Mark Hughes.

About two months ago, Warner Bros posted a casting notice for "an actress in their late 20s who is both tall and possesses physicality" to play Batman's love interest in Superman/Batman.  The big rumor flying around ever since is that the movie would be giving us our first glimpse of Wonder Woman - partly because there is a history of the two having dated in the comics and partly because most comic fans REALLY want to see Wonder Woman on the big screen.

According to Forbes film blogger Mark Hughes (who is reporting from Comickaze this weekend), actress Jaimie Alexander confirmed today that she was in talks with Warner Bros and DC Comics to play a role in the upcoming Superman/Batman movie and that she knew something of the story. 

So the speculation has begun anew - could Jaimie Alexander, long a fan-favorite pick for the role - be poised to be the next Wonder Woman?

I really, really, REALLY hope that isn't the case. And here is five reasons why.




1. Wonder Woman Deserves Her Own Movie!

Wonder Woman is the most famous heroine in the comic book world.  You can't just slide her in for a cameo as a tease of her having a bigger role later in the Justice League movie.  This is Wonder Woman we're talking about - not Black Widow!  Diana's story is an classical epic and requires - nay, DEMANDS a full-length solo picture!





 
2. It Would Mean WB/DC Was Lying To Us About Not Rushing Things

Earlier this year, DC Comics announced their upcoming film schedule.  Needless to say, Wonder Woman fans became worried that there were no plans for a Wonder Woman movie.  Those worries doubled when it was announced that The CW Network was halting pre-production on Amazon - a Wonder Woman inspired TV show.  Comments from DC Comics President Diane Nelson about Wonder Woman being "tricky" to put on the big screen didn't help matters.

Still, there were some signs of hope.  Earlier this month, Warner Bros.' CEO Kevin Tsujihara said "We need to get Wonder Woman on the big screen or TV.”  Later, Greg Silverman, Warner Bros.’ President of Creative Development and Worldwide Production said in a Variety interview that "Wonder Woman is an amazing character." and “We are taking it all very seriously and are trying to do a plan that’s respectful...and maximizes the stories as best they can,” when asked about a Wonder Woman movie.

This mollified fans somewhat.  Better to have to wait for a great Wonder Woman movie than have a bad one rushed out for a cheap buck, right?  Except reducing her to a supporting role as Bruce Wayne's love interest would mean everything we've heard until now was just lip-service.  That there is no great plan for waiting for the right script to bring Wonder Woman into play.  Which brings us to another point...




3. Wonder Woman Should Not Be A Love Interest!

You thought the fan outrage over Superman/Wonder Woman being promoted as a Twilight-style romance and Tony Daniel dismissing female comic readers' complaints about the book with reassurances that you'll get to see Superman's butt as much as Wonder Woman's in the artwork was bad?  Just imagine what will happen if Wonder Woman's first big-screen apearance is as Bruce Wayne's regular Saturday Night thing!  Or - Hera help us - if there's a love-triangle between the three of them!




4. Superman/Batman Is Crowded Enough As Is.

We don't really have any inkling of the plot of Superman/Batman but it's a smart bet that they're going to have to introduce some sort of villain into the mix, even if part of the movie does involve Superman and Batman fighting one another before uniting against the common enemy.  The smart money is on Lex Luthor but it could be just about anything.  And even though everyone in the world and their grandmother knows who Batman is, the movie will have to spend some time establishing who he is because of the basic rules of film-making.  It seems unlikely then - or at the very least, foolish - to bring Wonder Woman into the mix as well if The Powers That Be are already worried about Wonder Woman being too complicated a character to support a solo-movie.




5. It Seems Like Lazy Thinking 

I fear there's little thought behind casting Jaimie Alexander as Wonder Woman apart from "she's a hot brunette" or, at best, "she was awesome as Sif in Thor, so you know she can handle playing a mythic figure."  The fact that she's a talented actress with a diverse range or that she's a comic fan who knows the character well enough to discuss the flaws in the 2011 Wonder Woman TV pilot and how a Wonder Woman movie SHOULD be made don't seem to be considerations at all.

It's the same reason why everyone was clamoring for Lucy Lawless to play Wonder Woman for the longest time - she's a hot brunette who can kick ass who has already starred in a property based on Greek mythology.  Now, I think Lucy Lawless is a good actress and I liked Xena: Warrior Princess as a show.  But you can't just stick Xena in a star-spangled corset and call her Wonder Woman.  There has to be more thought behind it than that.  I fear that casting Jaimie Alexander on the same basis would yield similar problems.

***

All that being said, I would dearly love to see Jaimie Alexander as Wonder Woman.  And if the Superman/Batman title was a fake-out and Warner Bros. is really planning a story akin to Matt Wagner's Trinity, I would be quite happy.  Until then, I shall just give thanks that Warner Bros. isn't planning a Superman/Wonder Woman movie inspired by Fifty Shades of Grey.    

Only Human - Why Man Of Steel Divided A Fandom

NOTICE: In case the title doesn't make it obvious, this article will contain spoilers for the movie Man of Steel as well as several classic Superman comics.  Do not read any further if you have not seen the movie.

Also, A Special Thanks To David Tai for being my sounding board.
  



It's been one week since Man of Steel was released in the United States and tempers are still burning bright.  There are many things about the movie that angered Superman purists but nothing more than the climactic final battle where Superman snaps the neck of General Zod.  The fact that this was done to save the lives of a family after Zod said he wouldn't rest until he'd killed everyone on Earth and that Superman showed immediate remorse for the action didn't matter to these Super-fans.  Superman doesn't kill.  Period.  He always finds a better way.  That's the rule, clear as crystal.

I understand that viewpoint.  Certainly there's plenty of textual evidence for that view of Superman.

* Kingdom Come - one of the greatest comics ever, in my mind - was built around an ideological war between "the man who would kill" and "the man who wouldn't".  A new hero called Magog was the former with Superman being the later.

* What's So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way? pits Superman against The Elite - a quartet of reckless young superheroes who have no qualms about killing.  In the end, Superman proves that his moral code does not make him weak as he wins a duel against The Elite without resorting to lethal force.

* Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow had Superman willingly exposing himself to Gold Kryptonite - the kind which permanently removes a Kryptonian's superpowers - after he was forced to kill Mr. Mxyzptlk in order to save all of reality.  Why?  The panel below says it all. 


    This point of view is so deeply entrenched in the oeuvre of DC Comics that a goodly number of twisted alternate realities and dark futures came about directly because of Superman deciding that any act - including killing - was acceptable in the name of saving lives.  To name a few examples, there's the 'Brave New Metropolis' episode of Superman: The Animated Series, the 'A Better World' episodes of Justice League and the recent hit video game Injustice: Gods Among Us.  That would seem pretty cut and dry except there are also many examples of Superman killing that are just as much a part of canon as these previous examples

* Superman killed Doomsday before his own apparent death in The Death of Superman.

* In Final Crisis, Superman destroys the essence of the god of evil, Darkseid, by singing a song of hope that counters the vibrational frequency of Darkseid's life force.

* Superman killed multiple alien invaders in Secret Origins - the three-part pilot episode that opened the Justice League animated series (Go to 6:51 on this video if you don't believe me).

* Superman also ensured the death of General Zod and two other murderous Kryptonians in the Superman comics of John Byrne.

   

Heck, depending on how you define "Life" Superman may be a killer hundreds of times over.  Do sentient machines count as life?  Superman seems to think to given his treatment of The Red Tornado in the classic Justice League of America comics and Tomorrow Woman from Grant Morrison's JLA run.  So how do you justify every time he's ripped apart Brainiac or Amazo over the years?

Ultimately, this sort of nit-picking is pointless.  This goes beyond comics to a serious philosophical and spiritual truth - is it just to take a life in order to save another?  Examples can be given to justify both sides of the argument as valid and the history of Superman is such that both sides have a good case purely on a textual level.  And any examples given will be countered by people insisting that the other examples don't count for one reason or another.  And that's fine!  There's room for both of us in the fandom!  Some people want Superman to be the perfect example for all humanity to follow.  Others prefer to allow Superman the same latitude for lethal force as a police officer.

I fall into the later group, personally.  I don't have any problem with the idea of Superman killing for the same reason I don't have a problem with a soldier killing in the line of duty.  It's unfortunate and regrettable and it should always be the last resort but sometimes it is necessary.  I also recognize that there is a world of difference between killing and murdering.  Now, if Superman had ever committed premeditated murder, I'd object to it strongly.  But in that moment, Clark is forced into the role of a soldier and sometimes a soldier must kill to save lives.

What I find fascinating is that this outcry has erupted over Superman and Man of Steel in a degree that I don't recall for any other superhero movie in recent memory.  Batman is just as well known for having a personal code against killing as Superman.  Indeed, depending on the era, Batman's code against killing may be even stricter than Superman's!  Yet I don't recall anyone making as much of a fuss over the ending of The Dark Knight, where Batman is forced to kill Harvey Dent in order to save the life of Jim Gordon's son.  And I didn't hear anyone use the phrase "disaster porn" to describe the collateral damage The Avengers caused by taking the fight to Loki's alien army in the middle of Manhattan while numerous people cried foul over Superman's battling Zod in the middle of Metropolis.

I've been thinking about why this is so over the past week because I think it's something deeper than Superman being the first superhero and, as such, the one who should set the standard for all other heroes to approach.  I think it's because of the grand irony behind who Superman is as a character and all the roles he is meant to fulfill.

Simply put, Superman is meant to be simultaneously more than human and more human than human.  He has to look and act like one of us while simultaneously being an alien outsider.  To quote Batman (through the pen of Jeph Loeb in Superman/Batman #3) "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then ... he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."

I think that may be the key for some of Man of Steel's detractors.  I think some people want Superman to be a perfect god watching over them - not a flawed man with powers that set him above and apart the common man.  And there lies the grand irony.  We want Superman to be the most human of us all - compassionate, brave, noble, sacrificing - and yet we deny him that most human of traits. Imperfection.

How many sayings and songs are based around the idea of humanity being inherently imperfect?  "To err is human."  “To be human is to be beautifully flawed."  "I'm only human/ Of flesh and blood I'm made / Human / Born to make mistakes."  I could go on but that's ultimately one more debate that's far outside the scope of one column.  


One final thought: Man of Steel succeeds in showing us a Superman who is, in that sense, very human.  He clearly has a hard time during the battle scenes.  And why shouldn't he?  He's a farm boy with no combat training facing down an army of genetically engineered soldiers that were groomed for combat since before birth.  Even though he has a better grasp of how to use his powers, it's still a tentative thing as he never really explored the limits of what he could do.  I personally found that to be interesting and I think it addressed the repeated complaints that Superman is too perfect, too boring and that he never has to work for a victory.

I think that's why this movie was called Man of Steel instead of Last Son of Krypton.  Steel doesn't occur naturally.  It has to be forged - put to the fire and shaped.  Clark Kent can't become The Man of Steel without facing the heat and a beating, so to speak.

Some people say Superman should be perfect and perhaps they're right.  Perhaps this take on Superman has come too close to the Earth he's meant to soar over.  I do think there's one thing we can all agree on, though.  This debate - and all the little debates within that larger debate - are encouraging people to talk about Superman and comics and philosophy.  More, they're actually thinking about these characters and these questions.  And for a librarian who loves the comics medium, Superman and people using their minds, even if I disagree with what they think and what they say, that is a good thing.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 - A Review

On the odd chance that some of you haven't read the original The Dark Knight Returns and don't realize the significance of this particular story being adapted into an animated film, let me sum up.  Frank Miller's original mini-series redefined not only the way most comic readers viewed Batman as a character but the entire superhero genre and comic book medium.  Along with Watchmen, DKR was one of the first mainstream comic books to explore superheroes on a more mature level.  Its' success proved that illustrated literature was a viable medium for sophisticated stories and that such stories could be critical and commercial successes.  Not bad for a story that was written because of Frank Miller's mid-life crisis and his desire to write a story about a Batman who wasn't younger than him. :)



The Dark Knight Returns is set in the not-too-distant future, some ten years after the last reported sighting of The Batman.  Commissioner Gordon is days away from retirement.  Harvey Dent, recipient of some revolutionary new plastic surgery and psychiatric help, has just been released from Arkham Asylum with a clean bill of health.  A new gang called The Mutants holds Gotham City in its' thrall.  And Bruce Wayne - long retired from crime-fighting and resigned to a life of idle leisure - can no longer stand idly by doing nothing.  His return will send shockwaves through society, bringing both praise and condemnation from various media pundits and politicians as well as inspiring a new group of heroes, including Carrie Kelly - a young tween who makes her own Robin costume following her own encounter with The Dark Knight. 

The animation for this movie is top-notch.  I've rarely been disappointed by the animators Warner Brothers chooses and the studio is in fine form this time.  Wisely avoiding aping Frank Miller's grittier art-style completely, the film uses Miller's general designs while utilizing more fluid line-work in the actual construction of the characters.  This creates an effect where the main characters move like in a traditional modern anime but the background characters - usually depicted entirely in shadow, as with The Mutants who are only seen as outlines with red-lit goggles - are more stylized and less detailed, blending in with the darkness.   


Sadly, the film doesn't fare so well in the voice-acting department   Now, let me say that this movie has a lot of great voice actors rounding out it's supporting cast - Frank Welker, Tara Strong, Jim Ward, Maurice LaMarche, Paget Brewster, Grey DeLisle and Dee Bradley Baker all play minor roles and play them well.  Michael McKean does a particularly great turn as Dr. Wolper - the publicity-mad psychiatrist who declares Two Face completely sane while decrying Batman's negative influence on society.  And Maria Canals - Hawkgirl herself - does a fine job as the voice of Commissioner Yindel, Jim Gordon's incoming replacement.

No, the biggest problem with this movie lies with its' stars.  Peter Weller - who plays Batman - doesn't seem to have been given any direction other than to sound like a tired old man.  There is no energy to the portrayal.  He doesn't sound world-weary so much as he seems in desperate need of a nap.  What this role needed was a Clint Eastwood.  What we got was Wilford Brimley talking about life insurance.

Ariel Winter does somewhat better as Carrie Kelly, but only just.  Her performance has energy but far too many of her lines seem to run together without pauses between the sentences.  And not in the usual way that teenage girls sometimes speak in a rush without breathing.  I mean in the way that she says "No!  Don't Die!" as one word.  It's an odd thing, but the most effective scenes with their characters are the action sequences where there is no dialogue.

The script by Bob Goodman is another oddity.  Frank Miller's personal aesthetic is deeply routed in film noir influences and it's odd that the creative team would neglect that element in the script after going through such effort to see it brought into the animation  Goodman stages most of the relevant scenes from the original story and indeed the film opens, as the comic does, with Bruce Wayne risking his life in a high-speed car race.  While this is a cool opening, it isn't clear just how Bruce feels he has little to live for and is desperate for excitement and purpose without his internal monologue and musings on what would make for a good death.  Likewise, we miss out on what is arguably the most powerful scene of the original book -where we first get to see The Batman in action, as Bruce muses that he is nowhere near as tired or pained as he should be. 

   

Is The Dark Knight Returns, Part One worth seeing?  I'll say yes.  Despite some half-hearted voice-acting, it's decently paced and it looks great.  I'd strongly suggest reading the original books first, though.  Assuming you haven't done so already, of course.

Trailer for "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1" Released

SOURCE: 'Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1' Trailer

My apologies for not embedding the video here but MTV is keeping a pretty tight grip on it for now.

Visually, this looks impressive. They've captured Frank Miller's early art style and made it flow well. It looks like Miller's artwork come to life but it's not quite so sketchy or stylized. The bigger problem is the voice acting which - granting that we don't hear much dialogue here apart from the Mutant Leader - seems awfully lackluster.

Any thoughts, you all?

The Dark Knight Rises: A Review

It is good. Damn good. Don't wait for it to come out on DVD. See it on the big screen. The performances are all top-notch and the script by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer still managed to find ways to surprise me. All in all, it's a fine conclusion to the story Christopher Nolan started in Batman Begins and one of the greatest Batman Elseworlds stories ever.

I really can't say any more than that without unleashing some massive spoilers. So I won't. Just trust me when I say that if you're any kind of Bat-Fan, you won't want to miss this one.

Two-Part 'Dark Knight Returns' Anime In The Works

 

SOURCE: Animated Dark Knight Returns Adds RoboCop's Peter Weller And Four More

 

Apparently WB's next DC Comics anime will be a two-part adaptation of the classic Frank Miller story Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.  The following cast has been announced.

 

Batman/Bruce Wayne:  Peter Weller (Robocop, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension)

Robin/Carrie Kelly: Ariel Winter (Modern Family)

Two-Face/Harvey Dent: Wade Williams (Prison Break)

Dr. Wolper: Michael McKean (This Is Spinal Tap, Clue)

 

Veteran actor David Selby (the television seriesDark Shadows and Falcon Crest) was also announced as part of the cast, but has yet to be officially tied to a role.  

 

The animation still release thus far do seem to have captured the essence of Frank Miller's style in the 1980s, while still giving everything a more stream-lined appearance typical to Anime in general and the recent Warner Brothers produced DC Comics anime in particular.




No word yet on who will be playing Commissioner Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth of The Joker but expect the fanboys to have started pestering Mark Hamill about two hours ago. :)

The Dark Knight Rises - Trailer #3

New The Dark Knight Rises trailer officially released on-line.

SOURCE ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ trailer #2 officially online in HD

First Picture of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman from The Dark Knight Rises

Dark Knight and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army reviews

I just realized I had yet to get around to reviewing these movies, two weeks after the fact.

Let's keep it simple.

1. Dark Knight is awesome. Go see it on the big screen if you haven't already. Heath Ledger steals the show, though I don't think he's quite Oscar worthy. It's less dark than the first movie but the fight scenes still suffer from being shot far too close.

2. I honestly like Hellboy 2: The Golden Army better. Visually, it's a much more interesting film and not just because of the costuming and make-up - the cinematography is amazing, as you might expect in a DelToro picture.

Dark Knight and Hellboy 2 Reviews Are On Their Way...

I just got out of a double-feature, movie-marathon session where I saw both movies today.

I also just found out - about ten minutes ago - that one of my dearest and oldest friends, Daniel, just died.

I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not in much mood to talk movies right now. I'll write the reviews later, I promise.

For now though - because I think this would amuse Daniel given how we met through Rocky Horror Picture Show and because he loved George Carlin and any rants about people being stupid - here's a quick list of three socially unacceptable behaviors I'd like to see outlawed at movie theaters.

1. Attempting To Meet New People - There are many good reasons to go to the movie theater, but generally, making new friends is not one of them. I'm at a theater, I'm in the dark, I'm sitting on the back row in the corner, I want to be left alone to focus on the film. I do not want some frat boy with his beer pitcher plopping down next to me, trying to get my opinions on how sacrilegious it is that they are making another Terminator movie without Ah-nold.

2. Inconsiderate Parents- I'll admit this complaint is nothing new, but I found a new sub-strata in this ancient rock today. There have always been parents who refused to take their crying babies, bratty toddlers and inquisitive kindergartners into the lobby when they got noisy. Until today, though, I had never seen a parent who refused to take a child who was scared by a movie home. This one kid behind me was crying - scared, and rightly so, by the antics of The Joker. But this parent... they shhhhed the kid and told them to quit being a wimp.

3. People Who Try To Teach Narrative Awareness To Their Kids At The Theater- For those of you who don't know, Narrative Awareness is the technical term for knowing how a story works. It's knowing cause and effect, how actions lead to reactions and basically being able to have an attention span greater than that of your average summer blockbuster audience. It is one of the six key skills that make up literacy. It is also something that can be easily taught by asking a child questions as you read them a story or watch a show together. It is a very good and wonderful thing to teach your children as early as possible. However, I would venture to say - as a trained professional librarian, mind you - that there are certain places it should probably not be attempted. One of them is a movie theater on opening weekend at a PG-13 movie! And it definitely should not be a movie where you describe the action with the words "So Joker blows up the police station because he's naughty..."

Looking To The Stars - Heroes On Screens, Large and Small

Has Hollywood learned nothing from what comic-book adaptations have worked well and which ones haven’t? I ask this because there’s been a spattering of stories in the news lately that have me wondering.

First up, the latest rumors on the casting of Joss Whedon’s Wonder Woman movie.

Rachel Bilson In The Running For Wonder Woman
Mischa Barton on Wonder Woman wish-list
McPhee Addresses Wonder Woman Rumors


Okay. Three headlines there. Just for the sake of photographic reference, let’s review.

Rachel Bilson – Some woman from The OC

Mischa Barton – Some other woman from The OC

Katharine McPhee – some woman from American Idol

Now, thankfully two of these three rumors have already been defused. In a recent interview, Billson confessed that she hadn’t heard of Joss Whedon and certainly hadn’t been approached about Wonder Woman. And Katharine McPhee said in the above-linked article that she wouldn’t seriously consider such a big part for her first movie. And given those two are the only women of the three who come close to looking ANYTHING like what Wonder Woman should look like, I think we can handily dismiss the mention of Mischa Barton as “Well, actress A from this show is getting press so we need to give Actress B some press too” studio scuttlebutt.

Which is a good thing because NONE of these women should even be in the running. Nobody who is a singer trying to land her first acting role needs to be playing Wonder Woman. Nobody who brings up more hits for her nearly-nude paparazzi pictures than pictures of her acting work on a Google search needs to be playing Wonder Woman. And as cute as Bilson is in the costume, the ability to do a sexy seduction scene should not EVER be a consideration for playing Wonder Woman no matter how good you look.

Additionally, I have to give Bilson negative points for being on an IGN list of Who Should Play Wonder Woman? Anybody who can be mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Jessica Simpson and Lindsay Lohan as a serious by anyone, EVEN the horny half-twits running IGN, should be dismissed without a second glance.

Thankfully, this is all a non-issue. Of much greater concern in this little tidbit of news…

Heath Ledger HATES Comic Book Movies

Now, understand this. I’m not of the opinion that only a brazen fanboy can play a comic book character on the big screen. If that were the case, the idea of having Nicholas Cage play damn near every superhero who had a movie deal in the last ten years might make sense. Most of the best portrayals we’ve had came from actors who WEREN’T big comic fans but did come to know and like the character they were portraying. Tobey Maguire, for instance, had never read a Spider-Man book before Sam Rami came to him about playing Peter Parker.

By contrast, everyone who has ever gone into a comic book movie HATING the concept has, in turn, given a horrible performance. Case in point – Halle Berry as Storm and The Pretend Catwoman. Berry made it no secret that she considered X-Men beneath her and it showed that she didn’t want to be there in every single sequel. And I never saw Catwoman but given what I heard from those who were foolish enough to see it, it was much the same problem – they removed everything about the core of the concept that was likeable and just made something that was…. Bad.

So when I hear Heath Ledger saying things like “"I actually hate comic book movies, like ****ing hate them, they just bore me ****less and they're just dumb.“ or that he’s looking forward to playing Joker “really sinister and it's going to be less about his laugh and his pranks and more about just him being a just a ****ing sinister guy” - well, even with Chris Nolan directing, it’s a worrying sign.

Why? Because Joker, as a character, is the epitome of everything a comic book villain that works. He is over the top. He is colorful. He is unrealistic. And yes, he IS a ****ing sinister guy. But the humor, dark as it is, comes before the death. And Joker without the laugh and the pranks isn’t the Joker.

And on that note, let me just say on a personal level, THIS is not Oliver Queen.

I’ve watched maybe one episode of Smallville all the way through - working night-shift you get to miss a lot of bad TV. But even I know that they said, off the bat, that they were not going to have it become a show full of costumes and that any other superheroes showing up would be very rare, if it happened.

Having now seen these pictures, I wish they had stuck to their guns on that – even if superheroes are suddenly becoming more and more in vogue in the popular media. Because this... this just looks ridiculous.

First of all, sunglasses AND a hood? What’s the point aside from the extra added coolness factor? And as for the rest of it – I’d say that it makes him look like a metrosexual boy-band member but I don’t think any self-respecting gay man or even Lance Bass would ever dream of wearing this monstrosity.

But even bad fashion sense isn’t the biggest crime being committed here. He’s using a compound bow. A freaking compound bow, for crying out loud! And, no I am not complaining about this because in the comics, Oliver Queen has said numerous times that he HATES compound bows and he that would never use a compound bow.

A longbow, certainly. A short recurve bow, absolutely. But stylistically and practically it goes against everything the character stands for to be using something as modern and amateurish as a compound bow.

As an archer, I can attest that recurves offer greater power, smoother draws and a good deal more control to an experienced archer. Compound and composite bows are only used by good-old boys who can’t be bothered to use a real man’s weapon that requires practice and skill. It’s like going duck hunting with an M-16.

Hmmm... been rather a depressing and angry column so far, hasn’t it? And I do so hate to end things on a negative note. Sure wish there was some good news about something comic-book related on the small screen that I could talk about. Something coming out in the week after I’m writing this. Maybe something that would be on TV the night of the day that you’ll likely be reading this.

Oh wait! There IS something like that I can write about.

I know. I know. It’s a pathetic rip-off of Lost and all the big TV critics are saying good things about it, which means that it HAS to suck. It’s going to be the popular, pretty people playing with our toys and screwing things up – just like every other attempt to do a serious drama about people with super powers. It’s either going to be pretentious as hell or hokey as all get out, right?

Don’t you believe it!

Seriously, the first episode (which has been available for those in the know on the Internet for the last week), is not that bad. I think it would have been preferable to air the pilot as the two-hour movie that it was apparently premiered as at ComicCon but... the first hour is not bad and I’m definitely going to check out the second episode. I haven’t decided if it is tape-worthy yet – but it does not suck coming right out of the gate.

The one thing I can say is that, so far, it appears that this show will have a little something for everyone, regardless of what type of comic book hero you like.

Do you like your heroes idealistic in an Elliot S. Maggin style? There’s Peter – a nurse who has dreams of flying and something bigger in life.

Do you like heroes who see their powers as more of a curse than a blessing in the Stan Lee style? There’s Claire – a suicidal cheerleader who cannot die.

How about Frank Miller grim-and-gritty style characters? There’s Isaac – a heroin-addicted artist who paints vivid images of approaching disasters weeks before they happen.

Or maybe you like heroes that aren’t too serious and are even a little silly, like those in a Keith Giffen comic. There’s Hiro – a Japanese cubicle jockey and Trekkie who bores his best friend with crazy stories of his being able to stop time and teleport.

I won’t spoil anything else for you all. There’s spoilers aplenty elsewhere on the web if you want to read about the plot of the pilot beforehand. And if you missed the first episode by the time you do read this, you can watch the first episode here.

All you need to know is that around the world, people are starting to develop abilities that make them more than human. They are being sought, at the moment, by two people – the son of an Indian geneticist whose father predicted an event that would cause a jump in the evolutionary chain and a shadowy man in a suit who apparently has darker designs on what super powers can do for the world.

Honestly, this show has got a pretty high artistic pedigree what with Jim Lee just signed on to do a web-comic based on the show and Tim Sale being the one doing all of Isaac’s paintings. And the buzz from those who have seen the pilot is nothing but positive so far. Heck, the Sci-Fi channel has even picked up the rights to rerun episodes later in the week on Friday nights, which is good if only to prevent further endless reruns of Stargate.

And to elevate the one big fear I’ve been hearing from everyone who is concerned about the quality of the show? It isn’t a Lost rip-off. Stuff actually happens in this first episode and they’re getting to the point of things right away, by all indications. There’s also no mystery just for the sake of being mysterious though there is one plot twist I did not see coming. Mum’s the word on that one though.

Tune in next week. Same Matt time. Same Matt website.

In Defense Of Joel Schumacher

Batman and Robin, the fourth movie in the Warner Brother's Batman series has gained a rather notorious reputation as one of the biggest bombs ever made and has soiled the reputation of its’ director Joel Schumacher, who is accused of being responsible for the series decline. This is for the most part an unfair accusation since it was actually the studio executives who trashed the grand image Schumacher had for the Batman franchise.

The real problem with Batman and Robin is that the version released into theaters is drastically cut. Similar to the problems with the original version of Dune, so much was cut from the film that the release version made little to no sense. Schumacher claims that the original movie was four-and-a-half hours long and that the completed version of the film was “lost” by the studio in order to shift full blame for the project’s failure on Schumacher.

Although no physical evidence of this cutting of Batman and Robin can be found, many people have reported seeing this version in the theaters on opening weekend. “It was weird.” says 19 year old Batman fan Jonathan Walker. “We sat there and watched the movie for what seemed like forever. Towards the end, we all started feeling really sleepy, so it must have been pretty late by then. They didn’t have a clock in the theater but it felt like we were there for at least three hours. Maybe four”.

One of the reasons for these cuts was that Batman and Robin, in Schmacher’s original vision, was intended to be a musical. This is one of the main reasons that the movie most of us have seen has turned out so horrible. Much like the James L. Brooks film I’ll Do Anything, the studio test groups who saw the original cuts of the musical version of the movie, hated the songs. The studio, in a single memo dealt two deadly blows to the Batman 4 project. First, Schumacher was asked to remove the songs from the film. Secondly, the film’s due date was bumped up by one week. In order to get the film done on time, Schumacher was forced to film whole scenes to cover the information explained through the songs.

One example of how this ruined the film can be seen in Uma Thurman’s performance, and we use the term loosely. It’s not Uma’s fault, but she has little to do throughout the movie but act as Miss Exposition and explain away the plot. A clear example of this is in her first scene where she is dictating her character history onto a tape recorder. Yet as much as the character as Poison Ivy suffered, what happened to Bane is the true tragedy of the decision to remove the music from the show.

As I’m sure we all remember, Bane is the villain who in the infamous Knightfall storyline was able, through intelligent planning and brute force able to “break the Bat”. In the version of Batman and Robin we’ve seen, Bane is reduced to a grunting sweating flunky of Poison Ivy, with no intelligence or lines. It was Schumacher’s intent, so he says, to symbolize Bane’s vast intellect through his beautiful song and dance routines.

“One cannot appreciate the true beauty that is Batman and Robin until one has heard Bane sing a remix of the classic Rocky Horror Picture Show song “Sword of Damocles”, about a monster bemoaning his fate. Or what about “Today is for Bane”? And who would not be able to hold back their tears as Bane sang his death song, “Bane’s Requeim” upon his defeat by Robin and Batgirl?” says Scuhmacher. “Jeep Swenson, the actor who played Bane, proved to be a fine dancer. I think this was because of his experience as a pro wrestler, which obvious gave him great skill in working with a choreographer. It was not publicized widely, but Michael Flatley personally picked Jeep to replace him in “Riverdance” before the movie came out.”

Schumacker admits that his story sounds far fetched, but offers more evidence that Batman 4 was intended to be a musical. “Take a look at the backgrounds and costuming. You’ll notice that the gaudy and tacky look of the backgrounds is very much like that in any Broadway musical. For such musicals depend upon spectacle, flash, dash, pizazz and what have you. All the bright colors, the neon, the nipples… all of this was to create the illusion of a stage show on the screen.” Schumacker also points to the rather corny jokes of Mr. Freeze as evidence of his intentions.

“Back in the days of the studio musical, cheesy jokes were a hallmark of a fine family musical. I remember a line from The Music Man… “I don’t recall catching your name”…. “I don’t recall dropping it”. Now is that any worse than “You’ll never put me in the cooler?” Hmmmm?”

Schumacher was shocked when he discovered that the studio had cut the film, without his knowledge and asked to have his name taken off the picture. Alas, the WB publicity machine had him revealed as the director before he could insist that Batman and Robin be declared an Alan Smithee production. Which is unfortunate because now that the dust is settled it is Joel Schumacher who is now known as the “man who broke the Bat.” Still, Schumacher is hopeful. “Those executives must have decided I had a point about the musical… I hear they are working on a Batman Musical right now.”

NOTE: This is a work of Satire. None of the above is true, except for the thing about there really being a Batman Musical in production. May God help us all.