Search This Blog

Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts

Friday, May 25, 2012

The Right Decision for DC Comics



A few years ago during a reading of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling revealed to all of her fans know that one of her most beloved characters, Albus Dumbledore, was gay. This didn’t affect anyone who had already read the books because Dumbledore was such a lovable character and a favorite to many readers, including myself. Of the people who hadn’t read the series, it probably had the greatest effect on the gay community (now that the best character in one of the most popular series of all time was a homosexual).

Let me explain why I don’t care about J.K. Rowling’s announcement, and why you shouldn’t either. Rowling said that it was apparent in the books that Dumbledore had been a homosexual all along… What? There was not a single line in the book that even remotely suggested that Dumbledore was gay. It’s evident that Rowling’s decision to make Dumbledore gay was simply an attempt to gain publicity from the gay community, and I’m sure it worked to some extent. It didn’t really affect the future of Harry Potter because Rowling had finished writing all the books and Dumbledore’s sexual orientation was meaningless.

Just recently, DC Comics announced that one of their “iconic” characters was coming out of the closet. Evidently, this is an attempt to gain publicity in the same way J.K. Rowling did, and with U.S. President Barrack Obama recently stating that he supports gay marriage, there is no better time for DC to convert one of their lead males to the other side. But is it a good idea? Will it generate publicity in the same way Harry Potter did? I don’t think so, unless DC chooses the right character.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Marvel’s The Avengers Review: The Superhero of Movies in 2012

After countless clips, TV spots, and featurettes, The Avengers is finally in theaters and after looking at the first day numbers, it’s on its way to becoming the highest grossing superhero movie of all time (until The Dark Knight Rises?). There has never been a movie that had four separate prequels, all from different franchises. Marvel tied in The Avengers to each of these films and finally put them together to create not just what will become the highest grossing superhero movie of all time, but one of the best as well. The Avengers works on many levels and it’s led by its strong cast and excellent action scenes. Joss Whedon does a great job as the director and hopefully he will return to direct the inevitable sequel to The Avengers.

The film begins with Loki (Thor’s “adopted” brother) making a deal with an alien race called the Chitauri. Loki promises to provide them with the Tesseract (a powerful cosmic cube capable of providing unlimited sustainable energy) in exchange for power to rule the inhabitants of Earth. Not everyone who will watch The Avengers will have seen the prequels (judging by the box office numbers), and there may be some plot points that won’t be clear right away to those people, but the movie introduces each character well and gives some insight into their past. Captain America is shown struggling to leave his past behind; Tony Stark is as typical as he was in the first two Iron Man films; Bruce Banner is hiding in Brazil in an attempt to avoid S.H.I.E.L.D. One thing that wasn’t explained very well was Thor’s return to Earth. In his respective film, Thor destroys the Bifröst and the portal back to Earth. In The Avengers, he appears out of nowhere and it leaves the audience wondering how he managed to return. Loki only quickly mentions it and some people may miss it and be left without an explanation. It’s a minor annoyance for me and doesn’t do anything to negatively impact the film, but it is an important plot development that should have been addressed in more detail. Overall, the film succeeds on a character level because it does not solely focus on bring together the Avengers and having them battle against Loki, but rather focuses on developing their relationships as they struggle to gain trust and fight alongside each other.

One character who had little time for development was Hawkeye and it’s unfortunate because he’s yet to have his own film and has had no past introduction (aside from a cameo in Thor). He spends more than half the film under Loki’s control and does not have time to develop afterwards. Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) gives a few details on his past throughout the film, but aside from this, all we know about Hawkeye after watching the film is that he can pretty much shoot his target blindfolded. Black Widow on the other hand is given a lot more screen time and has a much larger role than in Iron Man 2. The character obviously cannot compete with the superheroes, but she’s a good addition to the team and we get to witness her excellent abilities as a spy. Marvel may attempt to do a spin-off; however, given her lack of actual superhero abilities, it will be interesting to see how she does with a film just for herself and which “villains” she’ll be fighting.

The film ends with an all-out brawl between the Avengers and the Chitauri. The entire sequence is shot extremely well and each character gets their fair share of kills. However, it is somewhat unreasonable that the Chitauri can be killed by a single gunshot. The power of their weapons make up for their lack of strength, but considering the circumstances (the Chitauri are making a deal with a “god” and threaten to kill him), it would have made sense for them to have been stronger and more resilient to human gunfire.

Joss Whedon does a great job with The Avengers and it’s an accomplishment considering he’s only directed one film previously (Serenity) that no one has probably even heard about. Marvel hasn’t been giving their films to popular big-name directors, which has allowed these less experienced directors to showcase their talent, such as Iron Man and Jon Favreau; Thor and Kenneth Branagh; Captain America and Joe Johnston. All of the Marvel films have had different styles of directing, but they’ve all been good in their own way. Marvel put a lot of faith in Whedon by giving him one of the biggest films of all time, but the risk has paid off. People have acknowledged the job Whedon has done, and the film is making tons of money (this is due to the insane amount of marketing and hype). The Avengers was also well-scripted, and the moments of humor were well spread out. In terms of the score, the film doesn’t do much, as the main theme is heard only twice or thrice for only a short period, and all the other pieces are forgettable. Hopefully an effort will be made to improve the score in the sequel.

The Avengers is a must-see-in-theaters film, and not only because of the explosive action scenes, but because of the 3D. Like Thor and Captain America, The Avengers was post-converted into 3D after filming had finished. However, the post-converted result was more closely related to Thor, with only a few lapses and a greater overall experience. My complaint with Captain America is that you could tell the conversion process was hurried, as the 3D was blurry in many instances and worsened the film. You could wait to see The Avengers when it eventually gets released on TV or you could download it illegally (as thousands of people are undoubtedly doing), but if there was ever a reason to spend money on seeing a film in theaters, it should be for a film like The Avengers. It’s an experience you do not want to miss, and I urge you to check it out as soon as possible. The Avengers instantly ranks as one of the best superhero/comic book films of all time, and it’s only a matter of time until production begins on a second film.

Score: 9.5/10

Follow us on twitter

Monday, June 27, 2011

Marvel Gets It Does Sony? (Part 2)

In part one I mainly talked about the cancellation of the spectacular spider-man cartoon.  In part 2 I elaborate on why the movie series had to be re-booted.



No need for introductions, that was covered in part one.  In this part I will list what the problems were with the movies and throw in a suggestion about what could have been done differently.  Before I get into it, I would like to say that I am a fan of the first 2 movies, they were really good; but they worked better as stand-alone movies, not a series (which is why 3 sucked).  The criticisms you are about to read are directed towards how Sony screwed up basic concepts which would have enabled them to continue the story of spider-man, rather than re-boot it. Here we go.

*note: the order that I list the problems in does not matter.  you can flip the list and the basics will be the same.

Villain choice



The Green Goblin is Spidey's greatest villain.  He tormented him, turned his friends against him, blackmailed him, and killed his first love (Gwen Stacy).  If you want to make a spider-man trilogy (or whatever you call a series with more than three movies), the Green Goblin would have to be involved at one point.  The first movie should not be that point.  The Green Goblin should have been developed (as Norman Osborn) for at least one movie before assuming the green goblin role.  Saving the goblin for the second movie would have enabled more focus on the origin story, given us more scenes of Peter discovering his powers (who doesn't like these scenes?) and allowed for a lesser villain to be featured first.  Ideally, this villain would be someone like the lizard.  A character that can actually be developed in a movie due to his being Dr. Connors.  The Dark Knight (the best super hero movie ever made) was the second of the series.  The first focused on Batman's origin, and featured him fighting lesser villains, somehow I do not think that the series would have been as good overall if the Joker was the main villain of movie #1.  Its just too difficult to fit in such key details about a character (origin and greatest villain) in one movie; allowing each element to have its own movie to develop makes for a more polished story.  Just imagine that the first spider-man did not have the Green goblin as a villain.  Now imagine that the movie has ended and you read somewhere that there is a scene after the credits.  This scene turns out to be Norman Osborn donning the Goblin mask.  How cool would that have been?  But I digress.  A-list villains like the Green Goblin, Hobgoblin, Dock-Ock, and Venom should not be featured with other villains in the same movie.  B-list guys (Vulture, Rhino, Mysterio, Chamelion etc.) can be featured two-at-a time. Ideally you want to build up villains so that they can join forces in later movies.  A classic example being the 'sinister six', where 6 of spidey's villains team up to take him down (this would sort of work like current Marvel movies building up to the Avengers).  Here is how I would have done the movie villains:

Movie 1: Origin Story + B-list Villain (for arguments sake lets use the Lizard)
Movie 2: Green Goblin
Movie 3: Vulture + Rhino
Movie 4: Scorpion + Mysterio
Movie 5: Sinister 6 (5 previous B-list guys with the 6th introduced in the movie-Electro?)


Sunday, June 26, 2011

Marvel gets it does Sony? (Part 1)

This 2-part article looks at the direction of  Spider-man and the mistakes Sony has made with the character. I am by no means an authority on the topic, but I know enough to voice my opinion, especially when the future of my favorite hero is at stake.





Many of you who read this will have probably seen, or at least heard of the spider-man movies.  The movies that were put out were financially successful, and two out of the three were really good movies (the third being the odd one out).  Given this information you would assume that a fourth installment was well on its way.  However, Sony (the company with the rights to spider-man) announced that they will be re-booting the franchise in 2012 with a new director, new story, and a new cast.  Sony pictures has attributed this re-boot to the resignation of director Sam Raimi, who resigned because he felt that he could not meet the company's deadline without sacrificing artistic integrity.  So why did Sony simply not hire a director that could meet the deadline?  They had a full cast, writers, and producers yet, they decide to re-boot everything because the director resigned?  Surely a movie with such a famous character (in an era of great interest in super hero movies) would draw many good directors to the project.  More importantly, why did Sony decide to scrap what they've done so far and start over?  There are many answers to these questions, and many reasons for them, I choose to believe the one that makes the most sense to me as a devoted spider-man fan.  Sony screwed up. Badly.  They brought the films to a point where it did not make sense to continue the storyline.  Don't believe me?  Just look at the ideas they were coming up with:
(entry taken from Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_in_film )

"that Anne Hathaway would play Felicia Hardy, though she would not have transformed into the Black Cat as in the comics. Instead, Raimi's Felicia was expected to become a brand-new superpowered figure called the Vulturess."

The Vultress? It's like they are trying to piss off the fans.
Furthermore, with Marvel Studios putting out great movie after great movie,the pressure was on Sony to make a truly classic spider-man film, something that they could not accomplish by continuing the mess they created.  In this mini series I will break down exactly why Sony could not continue the story they wove, where I think Sony made critical mistakes, how they can correct them, and what this ultimately means for spider-man.

I will preface my breakdown with a bit of my own background on the topic.  I am a big fan of super hero movies, super hero TV shows, and super hero comics. I do not particularly favor Marvel Comics over DC comics, I am just a sucker for cool heroes.  One of my favorite characters in the comics world is Spider-man.  I have read a fair amount of the comic (including the 'Amazing', 'Spectacular', 'Web of Spider-man', and 'friendly neighborhood' series).  I watched the much loved 90's cartoon, and all three of the movies.  In addition, I watched another (more recent) cartoon about spider-man titled: 'Spectacular Spider-man'.  I begin my critique of Sony's handling of spider-man with this particular television show, which will be part one of this series.