Kevin's Watch

Yeah! There is also love in the world! Or some such crap.

julie and I are hoping next week to see a triple feature at the movie house.

Tomorrow Land
Avengers : Ultron
Jurassic World

wish us luck. it would be epic.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Miller's problem is that he thinks everyone has to have a dark side and that they must indulge it whenever possible. He cannot imagine that someone can be a genuinely good person and he refuses to believe that anyone or anything can be incorruptible. The world isn't all dark, brooding, violent, and full of angst, Frank.

Everything doesn't have to be comic noir all the time, but each thing contains its opposite. Batman is part ascetic hero and part tyrannical vigilante driven by his own megalomaniacal demons. Superman strives for pure motives but on some level his beneficence is rooted in patronizing superiority and the sacrificed legitimacy of human desires and aspirations.

Doc Hexnihilo wrote: Everything doesn't have to be comic noir all the time, but each thing contains its opposite. Batman is part ascetic hero and part tyrannical vigilante driven by his own megalomaniacal demons. Superman strives for pure motives but on some level his beneficence is rooted in patronizing superiority and the sacrificed legitimacy of human desires and aspirations.

Precisely. The true danger of superhuman/metahuman beings--forgetting for a moment my own ideas about the fact that within 20 years of their emergence they would literally rule the world--is the fact that reliance upon such people is a retreat into very young childhood. "Don't worry, boogie--mommy and daddy will solve all your problems for you so you don't have to worry about anything." This is why Superman is actually more of a threat than Batman, a mere mortal would can be overcome quickly by setting up the right scenario--a fake crime going down being overseen by a team of snipers from 150 yards away.

the government would end up "recruiting" any and all supers.

sgt.null wrote:the government would end up "recruiting" any and all supers.

That is how it would start, yes, but it wouldn't take long for the collected supers to realize that they have the upper hand and turn the tables on their would-be controllers/handlers.

Most supers can be dealt with easily enough--they still have human limitations such as a severe vulnerability to bullets--but others with certain powers pose real problems that neither the government nor the military could solve. You can't catch a teleporter or a phaser and you cannot control a telepath except with another, hopefully stronger or more skilled, telepath. Collecting or recruiting all the supers into one place is highly dangerous, especially if the prevailing mood of the supers is one of "these norms can't tell me what to do".

The only reason this has never been played out in a comic book or movie is because the writers either haven't thought enough about it or they just don't like the idea. Go back to X-Men First Class. They are on the beach at the end of the movie, Magneto having just dealt with Shaw, and he stops the missiles. He didn't need to turn them around. With his power level he could have opened up the keels of the ships from that distance and caused them to start sinking.

Even powers which would be considered "minor" or "weird" can be highly useful when applied properly. Consider someone with super-jumping who can cover a couple of hundred meters at a time. They can jump up to the 20th floor of a building, enter through the window, and take care of business...or they can grab someone, jump up, let go, then land normally. How about becoming a shadow? You can't catch or stop a two-dimensional person who can slide in between the cracks in a wall or through the jamb of a locked door, presuming they don't go under it. A shadow-person can even be hiding on your own back and you won't know it.

I often get frustrated with people who write about superhumans because so much of the time they don't really think about the powers in use or how they can be applied in non-traditional ways.

I don't know why you guys are bitching about Batman fanboys and Batman not having a snowball's chance in Hell against Superman. These 2 characters have been around for 75+ years now and I think it's safe to say that Batman is the biggest overachiever in the DC universe, while Superman is the biggest underachiever. Shit, he's flat-out the laziest being ever imagined. His greatest enemy is bald, insane millionaire Rick Scott....no, wait, Lex Luthor. Yeah, really scary. I mean, seriously, couldn't the Wonder Twins take him out in 3 seconds? And yet, LL has kicked Supe's ass who knows how many times. I Imagine what Batman would do to if he fought LL, and I can only think Batman would kick ass.

Then again, Superman is a freaking killer now, So I guess Batman's screwed.

finally so the Ultron movie. really enjoyed it. other than what happens to Pietro.

did like the new Avengers line-up.

Spader was great as Ultron.

sgt.null wrote:finally so the Ultron movie. really enjoyed it. other than what happens to Pietro.

did like the new Avengers line-up.

Spader was great as Ultron.

It was going to be too much trouble fighting Fox for the movie rights to the character. They weren't even mutants in this movie, instead being successful experiments conducted by Hydra with some Terrigan Mist and the Mind Gem. Of course, the only way to know that would be to have kept up with Agents of Shield on TV but not everyone watches that show.

I think they have a pretty good roster right now, as well.

The only editing they did to Spader's voice was to make it sound more mechanical. All the tonal inflections and the way the lines were delivered was his natural speaking voice.

*************

There are so many superhero characters who are so dated that I am surprised that some of them have lasted as long as they did. The needs and desires of people from the 1930s as expressed through the superheros from that time are not the same needs and desires we have now; the same logic applies to the more science-fiction characters from Marvel in the early- to mid-60s. Collectively, we have constructed these characters, built them up as icons, tore them down and deconstructed them (ah, the good old 80s), then desperately tried to reimagine them for a world which is completely different from the world 50 years ago technologically, socially, and politically. Of course, comic books have always been a case of art imitating life so it isn't surprising that they are always trying to keep up. That being said, the "keeping up" is boring. Most old-school science fiction authors were ahead of the curve and this is where comic book writers should be, as well. Don't just change things up by saying "oh, I know--we'll reimagine this character as a Hispanic, or bisexual, or trans, or whatever" because that is simply lazy. If you write a good character is doesn't matter what their mundane background is, for the most part.

No, it is not possible to abandon such characters as Superman, Batman, or Spiderman because there is too much money tied up in the licensing and merchandising--the brands are too well-known. Still...I would like to see new characters with new ideas and fresh perspectives...but that probably isn't going to happen. Marvel is trying--the new Ms. Marvel is an Arab teenager (Palestinian? I don't recall), I think they made one of the new Spidermen black, a couple of more characters are coming out as gay (as if that means anything these days when, truthfully, no one cares). This is probably why Guardians of the Galaxy was so well-received (well, aside from the facts that it had a great screenplay, a great soundtrack, and a slate of good actors)--these were essentially new characters with almost no widely-held preconceived notions of how they "should" be.

All of this goes back to my single greatest complaint against people who write comics--they simply don't know what they are doing. To put it another way, they have not stopped to realize the full ramifications of the powers these people possess and how thing would progress in the "real" world. One or two telepaths, one or two phasers, or one or two teleporters and you could never stop a group of metahumans--not only could you never detain them, meaning the only way to stop them is to kill them, but once they control a couple of key political figures the world is theirs. "Well, Hahsi, if you are so insightful then why aren't you writing comic books, hm?" I would if I could but the likelihood of me being able to break into that field and make sufficient money to pay all my bills is really, really low.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

All of this goes back to my single greatest complaint against people who write comics--they simply don't know what they are doing. To put it another way, they have not stopped to realize the full ramifications of the powers these people possess and how thing would progress in the "real" world. One or two telepaths, one or two phasers, or one or two teleporters and you could never stop a group of metahumans--not only could you never detain them, meaning the only way to stop them is to kill them, but once they control a couple of key political figures the world is theirs. "Well, Hahsi, if you are so insightful then why aren't you writing comic books, hm?" I would if I could but the likelihood of me being able to break into that field and make sufficient money to pay all my bills is really, really low.

I don't know, Hashi... I think that if people buy comics about characters breaking the laws of physics as a matter of course like eating breakfast that people don't care about "how this would play out in the real world". Let's face it: Spider-man's refusal to kill any one has probably resulted in more deaths than any individual villain. I mean, what happened to "with great power comes great responsibility"? He is not taking responsibility, he's avoiding it...

But that's not why people read these comics. They read them to be entertained.

I want to thank Hashi for separating the on topic conversation from the slightly off topic via the asterisk break. I only know the MCU, and apparently not all of that; I haven't followed any of the comics since I was a kid in the late '60s.

Menolly wrote:I want to thank Hashi for separating the on topic conversation from the slightly off topic via the asterisk break.

You are welcome. That is a tactic I learned years ago on another forum to enhance the readability of my posts.

Hashi : the latest Spider-Man is Miles Morales. and what I have read with him was well done. with the latest Spider-Verse story arc I am hoping that Marvel finds a way for both Peter Parker and Miles Morales to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Ma ... Morales%29

reading up on Miles I discovered that India has published it's on version of Spider-Man. as well as other heroes from both DC and Marvel through a publishing company called Gotham Entertainment Group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_India

very smart to do this I believe. I can see Marvel and DC setting entire universes in native cultures. dying to see Marvel-Texas.


and I agree that for fans there was not a massive back-story they needed for Guardians. and the companies should aim for that. I would assume there are more movie-goers than comic book fans? while I appreciate the occasional nod, the average movie-goer should not be required to know fifty years of back-story to enjoy a film.

and really comic books should try that approach to their book lines. while I may enjoy picking up an issue numbered #642, the average customer would not like that. maybe they should title it more like a magazine, with the month more prominent than the year. and they should have a more streamlined comic universe for such customers.

too many comic book writers are fanboys themselves. Geoff Johns as example. we need more Grant Morrison type writers. would love to some of his stuff on the big screen.

the companies want the cache of the old character with the sizzle of the new. they want the best of both worlds.

do we need Bruce Wayne or Steve Rogers? or do we need a Batman and a Captain America?

sgt.null wrote: do we need Bruce Wayne or Steve Rogers? or do we need a Batman and a Captain America?

From a sociological perspective the answer is "yes". Since we no longer sit around campfires telling stories of the exploits of gods and demigods we have to express our collective cultural identity in some manner and superheros are one way in which we do this.
This is why the other answer is "no"--we don't need those particular characters any more. They were created in different times and the context in which they were created doesn't exist any more for the most part. Yes, brutal street crime still exists but in the context of the creation of Batman there are crimes which existed but didn't get any attention in the 1930s--domestic violence, human trafficking, and so on. As far as Captain America is concerned...well, no one thinks of war in such black-and-white terms any more and America is not the champion of liberty and personal freedom that we were back then because we have violated our own self-imposed code of conduct too much.

To put it more simply, we don't live in the world of Bruce Wayne/Batman and Steve Rogers/Captain America any more. Unfortunately, we live in the world of Edward Blake/The Comedian and Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias.

just like Wal-Mart we have Captain America.

1] Steve Rogers
2] Isaiah Bradley
3] The Spirit of '76 (William Nasland)
4] The Patriot (Jeff Mace)
5] William Burnside
6] USAgent (John Walker)
7] The Falcon (Sam Wilson)
8] Bucky Barnes

and that doesn't count the countless variations.

With a brief aside to Hashi that GotG was a smash because it was fun, I'll return to the topic at hand. I finally saw this movie last night. I think I'm going to have to watch it again, but my feelings are ambivalent. Strangely enough Ultron felt wasted, he was such an interesting character yet it was almost as though he was a sidenote in a movie that was titled in his honor. I'm not saying he wasn't realized but it felt like they left a lot of chips on the table instead of cashing them in.

I also found myself questioning the Bruce Banner / Black Widow romance. I don't think it was as convincing nor handled well as the light and fun flirting between Captain America and Black Widow in TWS. I'm not saying she belongs with Cap, although that obviously also happened in the comics, I'm saying that it was hard for me to accept that her character was so open to getting close to BB despite her past and despite the horror and self loathing lurking in his eyes. It feels like she should have been more guarded, which makes her unalloyed interest seem facile and glib. I have to say that Ruffalo almost single handedly redeems this little subplot with his thoroughly believable haunted reluctance to open his heart to someone his alter ego might tear into pieces. Plus there is also the sense that he isn't quite certain where she is coming from. Maybe the point is that maybe she doesn't even know, perhaps finding and controlling men is something she does automatically within her damaged reality.

For entertainment value it was solid, good even, not really a disappointment, filled with a fecund humor and camaraderie. It was fun watching the team interact and work together, and as a fan of Jeremy Renner it was nice to see Hawkeye get a little more screen time and character development. Chris Evans -- that dude is the perfect Captain America in my opinion, the one that holds the centrifuge at the axis and makes it all credible, and he was excellent as usual. It was also nice to see Tony Stark in a little bit darker light, bringing out the mad genius aspect of him more, playing up his obsessions, and slapping you in the face with the fact that he is fundamentally a loose cannon. That was important, and gave the film depth. The Scarlet Witch, though she remains an enigma in many ways, was also interesting as written and well acted. Even the boyish and cheerful Thor was a bit more subdued and troubled in his thoughts, hinting at developing maturity and depth.

Yet there was a bit of a hollow feel here, like this entire plotline was a throwaway that served primarily as a canvas for the exposition of some deeper rumblings within the MCU. I'm kind of echoing some of the main public criticisms of the movie, and I agree with many of them. I wish this movie had been more like CA: TWS in that respect, if the plot isn't directly tied into the "big" Avengers arc, at least take it seriously as a standalone and dig down into the roots of the Ultron theme. I guess I wanted more depth and less breadth when all was said and done. The only core character that seemed to experience a personal crisis was Hulk/Banner, and having Hulk carry the pathos alone is getting off a little cheap. 7/10.

they really need to do a Black Widow movie with Scarlet. they could include Daredevil as she dated him at a point.

I don't get the Widow / Hulk relationship. it does seemed forced. but having Hawkeye married takes him out of it, Iron Man isn't going to be tied down, Captain America is unlikely because of her past. Thor is a possibility, since she had a relationship with Hercules at one point, founding the Champions with him. (a group that included Angel and Ice Man.)

now I want a Champions movie. Hercules, Black Widow, Angel, Iceman, Ghost Rider, Darkstar, Jack of Hearts, Giant Man (Bill Foster version)

www.comicvine.com/champions/4060-40413/