Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare

Genesis and all that baggage...

2022-02-20T13:27:00.000-08:00

It's impossible to read anything without having your interpretation of it affected by your own biases, prejudices, and life experiences. Oftentimes, our personal spin is pretty trivial. Sometimes we change the meaning completely.

But sometimes we miss the point entirely.

And I don't know of anything that gives a better example of that than the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis. One of the biggest problems is the insistence on taking the story literally. This can, ironically enough, come from both the fundamentalist and skeptical points of view. In the case of the fundamentalists, that relies on completely ignoring any contradictions and what we have learned about the natural world over the past few thousand years. In the case of the skeptics, that view relies on the notion that the author(s) must have been of low intelligence and unable to see any of the contradictions within the text or with the natural world.

Setting all of that aside, we have the problem of the Christian tradition and dogma, which affects the understanding of both believers and nonbelievers alike. And whether they take the story literally or not, they seem to leave out some pretty important details when it comes to considering what the story means.

Generally speaking, the Christian tradition holds it that the significance of the story is man's disobedience, as Adam and Eve took from the one tree that was forbidden from them (after some prompting from a serpent). This sets us up as a species with original sin and the need for redemption, which comes in the form of Jesus Christ. In other words, the story sets up the rest of The Bible.

Here are just a few problems with that:

1. The Bible is not *a* book. It's a collection of books from various authors. Some of the books have multiple authors as well (like Genesis, where the Adam and Eve story can be found). Not only that, but some of the books are separated by centuries.

2. The story stood on its own for centuries before there was any kind of interpretation about how it was all setting up the arrival of Jesus. The Jewish tradition still doesn't view it that way, for obvious reasons.

3. The text doesn't say that the serpent was Satan/the devil. It's a serpent, and a serpent gets punished. When God tells him that he'll have to crawl on his belly, he doesn't say, "Oh, Satan, you old rapscallion you! Disguising yourself as one of my creations! Why, I oughtta..." (And I'm pretty sure that Jewish tradition does not associate the serpent with their concept of Satan - which is a very different concept than what Christians have.) I know that there are references in the New Testament that connects the serpent to Satan, but again, that didn't come around for several centuries later.

4. It's not just a forbidden tree. It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's a pretty important detail.

5. There is another significant tree - the Tree of Life. This always gets left out, and in my mind, it's a pretty big deal to just ignore.

So, what exactly is going on here with the Adam and Eve story? I'm not going to be so foolish as to say that I have THE interpretation. Just like pretty much every story, there's a lot going on here, and it's easy to be reductive. What I have here is A thing that is happening in the story, which I think gets overlooked by those who want to take it literally and/or retcon it into Christian theology.

The story of Adam and Eve explains why human beings are different from the animals but still lower than God. Here's my case for this interpretation:

1. The first thing that Adam and Eve notice once they take from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is that they're naked, so they cover up. (I love it when God asks them, "Who told you that you were naked?" This sounds funny out of context, but it also shows that the God of Genesis isn't the omnipresent, omniscient being that people describe today. What, he doesn't know what just happened? Was he taking a nap?)

So, they get some knowledge and suddenly realize that their bits are just flinging in the breeze. Do you know what goes around naked all the time and doesn't notice a problem with it? Animals. In other words, Adam and Eve were just a slight step above all of the other animals until they took that fruit. Then they realized what shameless exhibitionists they had been this whole time.

2. The serpent represents death, among other things. This is the thing with this story. If the two contradictory orders of creation don't signal "THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY" then a talking snake is slapping you across the face for your ridiculous insistence on textual literalism.

Generally speaking, people don't like snakes. Our prehistoric ancestors learned not to get too close to them, because by the time you figured out whether it was harmless or not, you'd get bitten and be on the road to death. This is why they are such a common symbol in mythology, often representing death and destruction.

It's probably not a coincidence that in The Epic of Gilgamesh, the thing that robs Gilgamesh of the plant that would give him eternal life is a serpent. (It's not a coincidence because that story obviously shares a common ancestor with the narrative found in Genesis.)

3. What is God's big concern that makes him toss those two leaf-wearing doofuses out of the Garden? "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever..."

Let's set aside the "us" (Who is he talking to?) for today and realize that man has become like God (or the gods even) in the sense that he has knowledge that he did not have before and which the animals do not. But God doesn't want them joining some kind of Hebrew pantheon (maybe Zeus with all of his travails advised him about this) so he kicks them outta town before they can get from the Tree of Life.

That's right. Fruit of Knowledge + The Fruit of Life = godhood.

We've got one of them, which puts us in a different category from the animals. We didn't get the other, which makes us lesser than deities.

I always say that myths are true stories of things that didn't happen. One of the profound things going on with this story is humanity's struggle to make sense of their place in this world. They had their gods in the sky that had human personalities but were somehow not subject to the same problems that we are. There were the animals who are alike us in so many ways, yet there is so much that sets us apart. This story is the way that some ancient people made sense of that.

An atheist family goes to Praise in the Park

2019-09-08T17:35:00.004-07:00

Yesterday I went with my wife and son to Praise in the Park in Todos Santos Plaza in our hometown of Concord, CA. It's a festival of Christian music, so if you know me, you might wonder why I'd go there willingly.

We went for a few reasons. For starters, it's always nice to see some live music, and I have no problem admitting that I like plenty of religious songs. Is a lot of it cheesy? Sure. But that's true for a lot of music in general. However, I'm not going to knock an entire genre which would technically include many songs from U2, Al Green, and Johnny Cash.

The second reason is that my friend, Justin McRoberts was performing, and it's always good to support a friend.

The third reason is that my son gets pretty much no religious exposure. Sure, much of that is by design. However, he lives in a world where most people have spiritual beliefs, and Christianity is still the predominant religion in our area. Seems to me like a good opportunity to expose him to a lot of good people who are deep down just like us but have a different way of seeing the world.

I have my opinions about faith and religion, but I try to keep most of them to myself around my son. I'll tell him what my beliefs are, but when we discuss the subject, I try to just listen to him and talk through what his feelings are. (No surprise here - he doesn't believe in a god. Kids tend to believe what their parents believe.)

My goal during the show was to also keep my thoughts to myself and let him form his own opinions. The only strong opinions I gave out loud was when I thought that the music was good or there was a good message that could appeal to nonbelievers as easily as believers. (Ideas about accepting others and realizing our own limitations are pretty universal.)

I should point out that we were only there for about an hour and a half. We caught the tail end of one band, saw a rapper, then saw Justin's solo set, and then stuck around for the first three songs when Justin played with a band.

Let me start off with the good stuff and warn you when I let loose with all the things I wanted to say out loud. That way, you can skip the negative/critical if you want.

The band that was playing when we came in was pretty good. It was your standard prayer-in-a-song, but the band was on point and so were the singers. No doubt the crowd there was pleased, and I liked the melody.

Next came a rapper. I'll save my comments for later, but my son liked it and even shook his booty a bit. A funny thing happened when the rapper said something along the lines of, "Have you ever had Satan just mess up things for you?" to which my son responded, "No." I was tempted to hush him, but it was an honest response. Satan's just not a thing that's a factor in his life.

Justin did a really great job. It was very centered on praising and worshipping Jesus, which shouldn't be surprising. What I really liked was how he incorporated video of Martin Luther King, Jr. and talked about (gasp!) social justice. Justin even gave a shoutout to gay people in his message of inclusiveness. In my area, that's probably not too far out of line from how the Christians here feel. Honestly, I don't think that I know any local Christians who are lousy to gay people. (But I should probably admit that I'm probably not the best person to analyze this issue.)

So, Justin was good, and it's really cool to see this guy I knew back in middle school progress as much as he did and really find a unique voice in a potentially limiting genre.

But as much as I liked him, the band was even better. My son liked it so much that he took out his phone and recorded some of the performance. They were definitely a bunch of musicians who are dedicated to their craft and sounded as tight as any top-tier act that I've seen. You don't have to believe in Jesus to feel the sincerity and power in what they were expressing.

So, I liked what I saw, and I'd probably go again. Not sure that I'd want to spend all day there, but there are very few things in this world where there are that many people that I'd want to stick around for all day. (Maybe a comic book convention.)

Okay, all that said - here were the things that I was keeping to myself:

I'm not going to go into an overview of why I don't believe in Christianity and all of my problems with it. I suppose that if you scroll through my blog from several years ago, you'll find what you need to find. I might have a few things left to say that are waiting for their own blog posts, but I'll save that for another time.

I'm also not going to make fun of the rapper, but let's just say that he was a white guy, and the thing that you think about white guy rappers who aren't Eminem probably applies to him. I'm not going to get too into it, although he did a bit where he got the crowd to chant, "Go Jesus, go Jesus, go Jesus, go!" which is basically what Vanilla Ice did in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze only replace "Jesus" with "Ninja". Like I said, my son liked him, and a lot of kids were up there dancing. Nothing wrong with dancing, unless you're Amish.

He talked about how messed up his life was until he turned it all around when he found Jesus. I always wonder what they make of people who go through life just fine without Jesus? Obviously, everybody has some room for improvement, but even Christians will admit that doesn't stop with a conversion. I mean, there are people who have relatively happy, productive lives and Jesus just isn't a factor in it.

I reckon that they probably don't think about that too much. I dunno. Maybe they do.

That's all fine though. It's his experience, and I have no reason to doubt him. I do take issue with his messages of "purity" and how he'd never touch any woman that wasn't his "wifey". Now, if it was a message of being loyal to your significant other, then I'd be fine with it. However, unless you just got back from the moons of Jupiter, you know that "purity" is about not having sex with anyone until marriage, which is a toxic ideology that ultimately makes kids wind up feeling bad about themselves. Being a virgin should not be considered a virtue (just as losing one's virginity shouldn't be considered as important as other segments of our society make it out to be.)

So, yeah, purity culture is one of those things that we know causes harm, so why are they still pushing it? Maybe for the same reason we pushed failed anti-drug policies for so long - people don't like admitting that they were wrong about something.

Anyway, beyond that, I'm not going to complain about people praying to God and praising God when that's the whole point of the event. Might as well go to the Taco festival and whine that there are too many places selling tacos.

I guess the other thing I want to write isn't necessarily a criticism. In one of the songs where Justin was playing with the band, there was a line that expressed how they were "more than just flesh and blood". That one really struck me, as it's just not something that I think about anymore, but I have long since come to peace with the idea that I'm just flesh and blood.

Part of me wonders what they're so scared of? I mean, is it REALLY so bad if everything about you ends when you shuffle the mortal coil? I don't see how having another life after this one adds any meaning. If anything, I'm feeling really fortunate that I even got to live as long as I did.

I'm sure that a person of faith doesn't want to hear this, so you believers out there might want to stop right here. However, it just strikes me now as being somewhat childish. It's like my son and Santa Claus. I'm pretty sure that he's bright enough to figure out that Santa isn't real. However, he still talks about Santa as though he is real, likely because he's afraid that Christmas will be different if he voices his nonbelief. The thing is, there simply is no good reason to think that you're going to live on beyond your flesh and blood.

No doubt some of you are thinking that you have a good reason that you're just dying to tell me. Maybe just trust me that by this point in my life, and as a former believer myself, I'm not likely to hear something new. Just go ahead and think that I'm closed-minded or lost or whatever makes it easier for you to deal with that thought.

Or maybe ask yourself a question - do you believe in an afterlife because you find that reason so convincing? Or do you find the reason convincing because you want to believe in an afterlife?

You might not have an answer to that right away.

But it's worth thinking about.

The All Mayonnaise Diet!

2019-07-23T16:12:00.001-07:00

I'm on the all ice cream diet.

There’s nothing worse than somebody who loses a lot of weight and then acts like they’re an expert on weight loss. Even if they’ve managed to lose a lot of weight, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve done it in a healthy way. It also doesn’t mean that it’s a good method for everybody to lose weight.

That’s why I’ve been somewhat hesitant to write this blog about how I lost weight. I’ve made a few posts on Facebook about what’s been going on with me, but I try to focus on how I’m feeling and results like my blood pressure (going down!) and my long bike rides. (I remember when I first made it to ten miles and that seemed like a big deal. My current record is just over 50 miles.) I also haven’t ever divulged how much I weigh or used to weigh. I’ll just point out that I had to buy new pants and my XXL shirts are just way too baggy for me now. (Even my XL shirts are a bit baggy, but comfortably so.)

Let’s face it - diet culture is toxic. The reason why I don’t go into my exact weight is because that’s too much of a focus. I once lost twenty pounds, for instance. I did that by contracting Hepatitis A. Certainly not a healthy method. When we focus too much on weight, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

Let me put it this way - I weighed about 30 pounds more than I do now, and I was taking lengthy bike rides. There is no doubt in my mind that there are people who are far slimmer than I was then who couldn’t keep up with me. Who’s healthier? If you looked at me, you’d probably go with the slimmer fella. But when the zombies come and you need a guy to get past them for a supply run, I would be your guy, 30 extra pounds and all.

I guess that’s one rather big disclaimer when I could have just said this: I am only going to talk about what I did. It’s not health advice for you. I can say that it worked for me, and I have not been gaining it back. (I was putting on some weight when the summer started, but with a few slight adjustments, I was able to get back down again.) I should also point out that I’m still technically “overweight”. I have a definite “dad bod” and nobody’s going to be asking me to pose shirtless anytime soon.

Before we go into what I did - let’s talk about what my biggest problem was before I started to turn things around. It’s not much of a riddle. I always got in a decent amount of exercise (about an hour long walk every evening). I ate a pretty good variety of foods, being sure to get in my vegetables. I also didn’t drink too much - averaging about one to two beers a day.

The problem wasn’t what I consumed. It was the amount I consumed. I didn’t just like to be satisfied. I liked to be stuffed. I also liked to munch in between meals. (And I’ll be honest, my in between snacks were high-calorie, low nutrition.) I didn’t really count them up, but I think it’s safe to say that I would go well over 3000 calories a day on average. (A guy my size who gets the amount of exercise I do needs about 2400 a day - but again, don’t take that as medical advice. That’s what my doctor told me, and it matches other things that I’ve read.)

As for what turned things around, it all began when I bought myself a bicycle. I actually bought one for my wife first, but then I got myself one so I could go out riding with her. I wound up riding a lot more often, and I found myself enjoying the cycling trails around me. (Iron Horse and Contra Costa Canal for those who live in my area.) I remember when a five mile ride would wear me out, but I slowly started working my way up to 10, 20, and eventually 30 miles. It got to the point after a few years where I invested in a lighter (read: more expensive) bike, and reached the aforementioned 50 mile record.

Turns out that all of that bike riding burns some belly fat.

I’ll be honest. I wasn’t the type to weigh myself. I didn’t even own a scale for some time. However, people were pointing out to me that I had lost some weight, and I noticed that my shirts were a bit more roomy. A trip to the doctor’s office confirmed that I had lost about 20 pounds.

Unfortunately, another trip to the doctor’s office revealed that my A1C is right in the “pre-diabetes” zone. My son has type 1 diabetes, so I know a bit about what that can entail (although they’re really two different diseases with different causes but similar symptoms and treatments). That put a scare into me.

I remember talking to my doctor about it. She assured me that it didn’t mean that I had diabetes or that I even needed to go on medication just yet, but I needed to keep my eye on that number and make some changes. I told her that I thought that I could do it. Sure, I’ve said that sort of a thing before, but this time it was going to be different. This time, I was going to be real about it and have a plan.

And that plan? The Paleo Diet!

No, wait, not that.

Atkins!

No.

Blood Type Diet? Keto? Gluten Free? Eating clean? Nothing but Mayonnaise?

No, no, no, not sure what that even means, mmmm...no.

I also didn’t opt for vegetarianism or veganism, but I didn’t want to lump those legitimate lifestyle choices with fad diets.

I didn’t go for any of those because I know myself too well. They’re all too extreme, and from my understanding, a lot of people can indeed lose weight that way, but they tend to be unsustainable and lead to an eventual return to point A.

(Again, I am not a health expert. If one of those diets worked for you, your doctor is cool with it, and you’re feeling good - go have fun with it.)

I wasn’t willing to sacrifice anything (especially sweets - my Achilles heel). I just had to scale things back a bit. And the way to do it was by tracking my calories and exercise on my phone. (I used the Samsung Health app.) This forced me to be a bit more mindful about what I was eating. I still enjoyed everything that I had before, from burgers to hot dogs to you name it. I also allowed myself one sweet thing per day. I like to save it for the end of the day, so I tend to turn down cookies, cake, etc. during the day because while I will allow myself those things, having one in the middle of the day means that I don’t get one at the end of that day. I realize that to some people that seems a bit obsessive, but I know myself. If I don’t put this “rule” on myself, I will easily consume an extra 600 calories a day just in sweets alone.

One thing that it has also done is made me consider what gives me the most “bang for my buck”. In other words, I try to get the most filling food for the fewest calories. I have a big breakfast that consists of eggs with kale/spinach, herring, oatmeal, and a banana (not all mixed together). That’s about 600 calories, and it nicely carries me through to lunchtime with the help of an apple at around 9:30. Compare this to what I once did - a big bowl of cereal, which consisted of far more calories, and I was starving by 9:00. Basically, whole grains and protein-rich foods tend to take a bit longer to digest.

Honestly though, I try to have a nourishing breakfast and lunch and then eat whatever the hell I want for dinner.

I should add a bit of a disclaimer though that I have drastically reduced my alcohol intake. While I was never a big drinker in the first place (1-2 beers a day) I am now down to 1-2 beers a month. Essentially it just kept coming down to whether I wanted to have ice cream/chocolate at the end of the day or a beer.

Chocolate wins. Your mileage may vary.

Over the course of several months, I dropped about another 30 pounds. It’s funny how it happens because the pattern was that I’d gain some weight as I added muscle (mostly to my legs - I’m not big on upper-body workouts) and then see a drop as I lost more fat. I think that I averaged about 1-2 pounds per week.

This said, I really wonder how weird it must feel when people drop that much weight in a short amount of time. I noticed little changes that came along bit by bit. I could lie on my stomach while I slept again! I could peddle my bike while raising myself up off the seat! I could suck in my gut!

At this point, I’m still doing the same thing but I’m not dropping any more pounds. It’s okay. I feel good, and while my A1C hasn’t gone down, I have confidence that I can, at the very least, keep it where it is. As for all of my other health indicators like cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. they all look better than they ever have and are within the “healthy” range. I think it’s safe to say that I’m probably healthier than I have ever been in my adult life.

So, that’s what I did. Like I said from the start, that’s just my story and it no doubt has some flaws and might not work for you.

Who should you listen to? Actual dieticians. (What about nutritionists? That’s not a legally protected term like “dietician” is.) I really like Abby Langer. She’s a great rational, skeptical voice who cuts through a lot of the bullshit and toxic culture that lurks in the “health” industry.

Bill Maher and the low art of comics

2018-11-17T22:06:00.000-08:00

Anybody who's a comic book fan has probably read what Bill Maher has had to say about Stan Lee. Apparently, Maher doesn't see what the big deal is, and he thinks that comic books can't be sophisticated because they contain pictures. I'm not going to go too into Bill Maher here. I lean pretty left, so I appreciate when he criticizes conservatives and Trump. However, he's a tremendous hypocrite for calling out the right for its climate change science denial while espousing scientific illiteracy when it comes to vaccines and GMOs. (And even though he's an atheist like myself, his movie Religulous contained a lot of really bad arguments.)

Anyway, Neil Gaiman said it best with his tweet: "More people cared about Stan Lee’s death than care about Bill Maher alive."

With that said, I wish that people would get over the whole thing with mixing words and pictures. Literature can be high art, correct? So can drawings, right? Why is it bad when you put them together, either in a comic book or a picture book? Most people can't draw much of anything, much less draw well. Artists, including comic book artists, take years and years to develop their skills. When it comes to comic book artists, they not only need to know how to draw, they need to know how to tell a story with pictures. Ever look at a comic and get confused as to what order you should look at things? While the problem might be with you, chances are also good that the artist doesn't know how to construct a page just right so your eye flows naturally from one panel to the next.

I realize that lots of people are already citing works like Maus and Watchmen as examples of the genre achieving high-art status. That's worth mentioning, but even if we didn't have these ready examples, the very notion of panning an entire art form is just ridiculous.

Think of it this way: if the problem with comic books is that they require pictures and can't just use words, then what does that say about every other form of art?

Music? No thank you. I'll just read books of poetry because I don't need somebody to sing it to me! Some of those songs don't even have words!

Those folks who see live productions of Shakespeare? What, they need a bunch of actors to perform the play for them? Why can't they just read it? It's all published in books!

Ever go to an art museum? Why? Don't you know how to read?

The irony of it all is that the basis of Maher's criticism is one that can be leveled much more effectively at the way he makes his living - television. What, that's high art all of a sudden? (I believe that it can be, but if only comics or television can be on the list of high art, I'll put comics first.)

I reckon that Maher probably hasn't looked at a comic book since he was a kid, and he figures that they're all the same as they were back then. (But I also hate the idea of disparaging entertainment made for kids. That can be just as great as anything else.)

I don't expect everybody to have the same depth of knowledge about comics history that I do, but I wonder if Maher would be surprised if he found out that his attitude is rooted in one that was spearheaded by puritanical religious zealots who sought to ban comic books in the 1950s. The medium has been getting more and more respectable over the years, attracting a more diverse audience. I've been reading them for over 30 years, and I used to hear people say stuff like what Maher did all the time. I guess it just kinda shocked me that a guy who did a cameo in Iron Man 3 would be so totally clueless. Surely he knows and interacts with some pretty intelligent comic book readers?

Lastly, he tries to draw a link between the fact that we take comic books seriously in this country and we elected Donald Trump to the presidency. I guess Maher also doesn't know how much more respected comic books are in Europe and Japan.

Whatever. The man likes to feel like he's better than all the rubes out there, but somebody needs to tell him that you need to choose between being condescending and being full of shit. You don't get to do both.

Excelsior to the Man

2018-11-12T15:46:00.000-08:00

It's rare that I get sad or even shed a tear when it comes to a celebrity death. Today is different though because Stan Lee has passed away. It's not like this was sudden and unexpected. The man made it to 95, and his ailing health has been in the news. It still hits me hard though because I feel like it's the end of something more than just one of my favorite creators.

I don't know how old I was when I first became aware of Stan Lee. I remember that he narrated Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends, so I must have been around seven or eight. I remember that my sister had to correct me, as I thought he kept saying "This is Stanley" as opposed to "Stan Lee".

I've met him four times in my life. I remember the first time, when I was probably twelve or thirteen, I told him that I had been a fan of Spider-Man my whole life. I'm not sure what he said in reply, but it was a witty/funny/heartfelt response.

The second time, when I got him to sign the first issue of the Silver Surfer story that he did with Moebius, I told him that my mother had also read and enjoyed that particular comic. He responded with "Tell your mother I said hello."

I honestly don't remember the third time, but I have the autograph from 1991 to prove it.

The fourth time was just a few years ago when he did a signing at my local comic book shop, Flying Colors Comics. My wife wanted to be there, but she had jury duty. My son was only four years old, and wouldn't understand why we were waiting in line. I wanted them to be a part of it though, so I got Stan to hold up a picture of my wife and son for the photo I got. He seemed to get a genuine kick out of it. When I thanked him for coming out to do the signing, he replied, "Yeah, that was awfully nice of me to do that."

It's hard for me to convey just how much Stan Lee means to me. If you scroll through my blog, you'll see that I write a lot about comics. While comics would certainly exist without him, I'm not sure that I even would have gotten hooked if it had not been for him. While I read all sorts of stuff now, it was Marvel Comics that sparked my imagination initially. And while it's true that creators like Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby did not receive their fair share of credit and attention, Marvel would not be Marvel if it wasn't for Stan Lee.

When my son was really little, I read to him some of those old Lee/Ditko Spider-Man issues. While Ditko's art is something that I have grown to appreciate over time, I always enjoyed Lee's dialogue, and reading it out loud made me realize how much of the very character of Marvel Comics is due to his way with words.

Stan Lee always managed to balance fun and gravitas at the same time. The titles of the stories set the reader up for this unique mix of storytelling: "When Falls the Meteor!", "Where Flies the Beetle!", and "If This Be My Destiny!" This is some serious stuff, dammit! But you're going to enjoy every second of it, double dammit! And even if your first Marvel Comic wasn't written by him, his style continued to permeate throughout the books long after he stopped writing them on a regular basis.

I think that this is one of the reason why I love the Marvel movies so much. Is there anything more fun than watching Thor and Rocket Raccoon have a heart-to-heart talk over the fact that Thor no longer has anything left to lose in his life? But at the same time, it's all taken very seriously, and you can feel empathy for both a talking raccoon and the god of thunder. That's some Stan Lee influence right there, and I think the movie makers, from the producer to the director to the actors, would be the first ones to admit that.

Speaking of the movies, one thing that's great to know is that Stan finally got to see all of those characters finally get the respect they deserve from Hollywood. I remember when I saw him for the first time at a convention, he was talking about the inevitable release of all kinds of movies based on Marvel characters. I remember telling my uncle all about that, and he had to break it to me that Stan had been hyping all kinds of projects ever since he moved out to Hollywood, and most of these projects never saw the light of day, and those that did were major clunkers (see Dolph Lundgren in The Punisher).

I doubt that I'm going to be the only one writing a tribute to Stan who touches on the fact that his biggest talent was as a master of hype. Yeah, he could write a good story, and he changed the way superhero comics were done, but his biggest skill was getting people excited. That was right there on the page, but it also would come through in that unmistakable, charismatic voice of his. (He doesn't just get all of those cameos because of his creator credits!)

Anyway, this one is hard on me because it feels like something bigger has come to an end. Stan was around during the Golden Age of Comics. He changed the way things were done during what he (of course) dubbed The Marvel Age of Comics. While he may not have been doing regular monthly books by the time I started reading in the 1980s, his presence was always there. My son, who only takes a passing interest in superhero comics, knows who he is. My wife knows who he is. Shoot, pretty much everyone knows who he is.

I often share obituaries of important comic book creators on Facebook. I usually only get a few people who like/comment, as not many people know who they are.

Everybody knows Stan Lee though. I don't think that there's another comic book creator where I can say the same.

Smash diabetes!

2018-07-24T19:17:00.002-07:00

Sometimes, in order to save my seven year old son's life, I give him gummy bears. A friend of mine once helped me out by giving him Cheetos. I've also given him cake frosting, which I had to do the last time we took a bike ride. I just told him to open his mouth as I squeezed it right out of the tube.

Before you think to yourself, "Gummy bears? Cheetos? Cake frosting? What kind of wonderful disease is this and how do I catch it?" I've gotta break the bad news to you. For starters, it's type one diabetes, and that also means getting a lot of shots and needing insulin in order to properly digest food. If you still want it despite all of that, sorry, but you can't catch diabetes. Basically, your immune system needs to attack your own body. (That's type one diabetes anyway. Type two is another story, and you can look into that for yourself.)

It's been about a year now since my son was diagnosed. I can laugh about it and see the humor now, but I certainly couldn't then. I remember while my son was in the hospital, I was having dinner with my in-laws at a restaurant right next door. I had to get up and leave during my meal so I could just sit outside the place and cry. No doubt lots of people who were walking and driving by saw me, but I didn't care because there was just so much pain that I had to get out.

Diabetes didn't happen to me. It's my son who's going to have to live with it and deal with it for the rest of his life. But most of you parents know that a child is a piece of yourself that you let go into the world. Not only that, but it's the most vulnerable part. It's the part where you'd sacrifice the rest of you to save. I wrote some time ago about how my great-grandfather died while saving one of his children, but unfortunately there are no horses that I can jump in front of in order to save my son from diabetes.

Want to know what's really horrible? If you have kids, you no doubt know how much they don't like shots. Imagine telling your kid that there's not just another shot coming up later that day but that shots are going to be a regular thing for him several times a day for what's probably going to be the rest of his life. I'll never forget the look on his face, and I'll never forget how I felt.

Another thing that I remember shortly after coming home is that I watched the horror film It Follows. I don't want to get too bogged down into the plot right now, but ultimately it's about a monster (that takes the form of a person) that will continuously hunt down its victim. There are all kinds of things that the victim can do to temporarily get away and/or delay its inevitable arrival. Strangely enough, I found this film to be not just a great horror film but strangely cathartic. This is essentially what diabetes is. It's a death sentence. My son can stop that rise in blood sugar with insulin, but eventually he's going to have to take insulin again with his next meal. I guess the film held a mirror up to reality and helped me to deal with it.

Another pretty bad thing was when I was taking care of him a couple of days after he came back from the hospital. We were trying to do the finger prick so he could find out his blood sugar level. For some reason, the device wasn't set to the right level, and there wasn't enough blood coming out to get a proper reading. I made the poor guy poke himself again and again, and the whole time he just wanted to eat some lunch. I pretty much freaked the hell out by cursing and shouting and banging my fists on the table. (In full disclosure, I was also pretty hungry, which no doubt made me think less clearly. Parents! Take care of yourselves if you want to take care of your kids!)

One of the worst things, which fills me with guilt, is a picture of my son that was taken shortly before his diagnosis. He looks so gaunt in that picture. I ask myself how I didn't notice. Why didn't I insist on taking him to the hospital sooner? Why was I in such denial and figure that he'd snap out of it just like I pretty much always do when something's wrong with me?

Of course, I know it's hard to tell in the moment because he didn't go from healthy-looking to sickly overnight. Plus, I need to take comfort in the fact that my wife and I have been taking good care of him (and even he does his part) so that he looks really strong and healthy now.

But still, that guilt monster comes crawling back at me just when I think I've defeated it. (I guess that movie works on a few levels for me. Funny how it's really more of an obvious metaphor for STDs, but as I always tell my students, sometimes a deeper level to a story comes more from what the audience gets out of it than what the storyteller intended.)

I originally wrote a longer post where I detailed what happened when he was diagnosed, while also going into my own struggle with anxiety and depression that I was battling right before then. Maybe I'll get to those at another time. Right now, I needed to get some of this stuff off my chest. This was too hard for me to write about until just recently. Not too long ago, it seemed like I couldn't even look at my son without feeling sorrow for the fact that he had this disease. When I would see pictures of him when he was younger, I could only think about how that was before his diagnosis and everything was so much easier then.

Like I said, I can laugh at some of the absurdities of it all now. Perhaps it's because shots aren't that big a deal for him to get or for me to give. He's always willing to take another if he's hungry enough for another slice of pizza or more fried chicken. I've also discovered how brave of a kid that I have. It's a hell of a way to find out, but I'm pretty confident in saying that he is brave because I've seen him put it into action.

And while it's true that he's been handed a death sentence, haven't we all? It's all just more immediate for him, and while I always worry about the future, there was never any guarantee that everything would be okay. Now I just don't get to pretend anymore.

Read These Comics! - The Silver Surfer: Parable

2018-07-14T20:26:00.002-07:00

If you would have asked me a week ago how many Stan Lee signatures I had in my comics collection, I would have told you three. The first time was in 1987, the second time in 1989, and the third time in 2014. Imagine my surprise when I sat down to re-read The Silver Surfer: Parable to find that he not only signed the first issue (as I remembered from '89) but the second issue in 1991. And as an added bonus, he signed the backboard and wrote "Excelsior!" Geez, how did I forget about that? I'm not even 100% sure what convention that was.

Anyway, since this series first came out in 1988, that places me at about thirteen years old when I first read it. I'm sure that I read it a few times after that, but adulthood brings fewer rereadings of comics, and it's safe to say that I haven't read these comics in over twenty years.

How does it hold up? Pretty well.

It's a solid story, and it doesn't read like what Stan did back in the 1960s. Even if you don't like the story, it's pretty clear that we have a master of the art form. He knows when to just let the pictures tell the story, and unlike some of the comics from the Silver Age, he doesn't bog it down in a lot of redundant exposition.

I should also say something about Jean "Moebius" Giraud. For those who don't know, he's a French artist, and this is one of the few American comics that he's done. I've read some of his other works, including the Western Blueberry, and some of The Incal. While I appreciated the art, I just couldn't get into them. Don't get me wrong, this is not me telling you to avoid them. By all means, check them out, because he has a lot of fans and is well-respected all over the world. The problem might be me.

My only complaint about the art is that this series wasn't printed on higher quality paper like it deserved. (There have been reprints that have rectified this.) Still, even that doesn't hurt it. While I complimented Lee on knowing when to let the pictures tell the story, he wouldn't have been able to do so if the artist didn't know how to tell a story.

Any story that features the world-devouring Galactus needs to make him look not just like a giant, but downright god-like. That's exactly what you get from this. It's especially important because in this out-of-continuity story, Galactus essentially comes down as just that - a god. Moebius really sells it, and the reader can really feel the terrifying grandeur of the character on each page.

When Galactus first arrives, he just stands there in the middle of the city. He doesn't break out his machines in order to devour the planet. He's like an old-time religious idol, and he's worshiped as one. This is exactly his plan, as he knows that the presence of a god will lead to chaos and the destruction of humanity, as nothing inspires people to kill like doing the will of a god. He doesn't even make any commandments, as he (rightfully) figures that some human will claim to speak for him soon enough. It's not until the Silver Surfer blasphemes this god that Galactus begins to move and shows what he truly is - a force of destruction. I don't want to say anything else about the story, as I hope that you're able to read it for yourself.

After reading a few interviews with Stan Lee, it's safe to say that he lies somewhere on the agnostic-atheist side of things when it comes to belief in God. But just like a lot of us nonbelievers, he's clearly interested in the subject and explores it here. As I said before, I was just a kid when I read this. It really stuck with me though, and I remember that this was an example of why I'd insist to adults that comics were not just for little kids. While I wouldn't tell you that it's like reading a book by a religious philosopher, it does throw out enough interesting ideas to get you thinking. This was certainly the case when I was 13, but even at 44 I'm finding that I can't get it off my mind.

Green Lantern Corps and the Case for Jessica Cruz

2018-07-13T20:16:00.000-07:00

Who knows what the heck DC/Warner is up to these days when it comes to their movies. They're obviously still trying to catch up to Marvel by trying so hard not to be Marvel. Jared Leto's going to be the Joker again, right? But now Joaquin Phoenix will be The Joker in a solo Joker movie? Why is the Joker getting his own movie?

As of this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they have all of their movies be nothing but a big buildup to The Wonder Twins. (And yes, I know that Wonder Woman was fantastic. And I actually liked Justice League in spite of its obvious flaws.)

Last I heard, the plan for Green Lantern was to make a Green Lantern Corps movie. Essentially it would be a buddy space cop movie with Hal Jordan and John Stewart. This is good because since Stewart is African American, we can get a little bit more diversity in our superhero movies.

But I'm going to make some longtime fans upset and utter something potentially blasphemous.

I say ditch Hal Jordan.

That's right. Forget Hal Jordan.

He had his chance. Was it the fault of Ryan Reynolds? I don't think so. I blame a half-baked script and awful special effects. But we've seen him on the big screen before, and it didn't work.

I realize that many longtime comics fans aren't going to like this. Hal Jordan is the original (unless you count the Golden Age) Green Lantern of Space Sector 2184. He's the classic model. Sure, he's been replaced in the comics before, but it pretty much always comes back to him. Whenever DC does a big crossover event and the Justice League needs a Green Lantern, he's the one we get. He's the one that most people recognize (except for kids who grew up with John Stewart in the Justice League cartoon).

If we don't get Hal Jordan, then who do we get?

We get the one who has the potential to be the greatest Green Lantern of them all.

Jessica Cruz.

Let's get the easy reason out of the way first why it should be Jessica representing 2814. She's both female and Latina. The first one is a pretty good bonus for diversity, the second one his huge. Don't tell me that there aren't any Latina superhero fans out there. I go to comic book conventions. I know that they're there. And I'm sure that there are some little girls who would love to see somebody who looks more like them up on the big screen.

Honestly, I feel as though that reason is good enough. But for me, I have something personal to relate to when it comes to her. I'm neither female nor Latin, but Jessica deals with anxiety just like I do. To be fair, I don't deal with the absolute crippling anxiety that she does, but I deal with it enough to relate to her.

And it's her struggle with anxiety that makes her the greatest Green Lantern. (That's right! I said it!) For those of you who don't know, current continuity posits that not just anybody can wield a green lantern ring. Other heroes have tried (notably Green Arrow and Batman) and while they were able to get some results, it was absolutely agonizing for them. A Green Lantern is somebody who can overcome great fear and possesses tremendous willpower.

While Jessica's story is far more complex than this, part of her backstory is that she went camping with some friends, and all of them were killed while she managed to survive. She has post traumatic stress syndrome, and it resulted in her shutting herself indoors for three years. Being a Green Lantern has been a struggle, and she has had difficulty creating constructs with her ring.

You might be wondering then, how can a shut-in with anxiety possibly be the greatest Green Lantern when they're supposed to be able to overcome great fear?

Because for Jessica, every time she walks out of the house, she is overcoming great fear. One of my favorite issue of Green Lanterns had her struggling to build up the nerve just to go to Simon, her friend and fellow Green Lantern's, house for a dinner party. Pretty much every moment is a struggle for her.

Some supervillain comes along who wants to rule the universe? He's secondary to just walking out the front door.

There is so much potential for this character, and I really hope that they continue to do great things with her.

Jesus is a friend of mine

2018-07-13T19:26:00.000-07:00

Hey, Christians, are you tired of people referring to your relationship with Jesus Christ as a "religion"? (If you're fine with it being a religion, as I know many of you are, then just move along.)

Hey, religious skeptics, are you tired of Christians who are in denial about the fact that they are followers of a religion?

Guess what? I think that I can fix this for the both of you.

First off, I'm going to step out of my wheelhouse here and try and get into the mindset of the Christian who doesn't think of what they're doing as a religion. I hope that any "it's not a religion" Christians read this and correct me if I get anything wrong. Obviously, you all don't see things the same way, but I'm fairly confident that I can get the basic gist down. I could be wrong though, and I'm willing to write an update and/or have a conversation in the comments section until I accurately depict your point of view.

The word "religion" has a lot of baggage. There are a whole lot of people out there who have ruined it by being judgmental, violent, controlling, etc. That's not what a relationship with Jesus is about. Jesus came down to save us. He offers eternal salvation, and all you have to do is accept him into your heart and believe in his sacrifice. Doing so doesn't just win you a one-way ticket to heaven. It transforms you, on the inside. It changes your whole perspective on life, and you realize that you're living for a greater purpose. All the trivialities fall by the wayside, as Jesus makes it clear that whatever you're dealing with now is insignificant next to what he has to offer you.

Is that good? I think that's pretty good.

Religious skeptics? Are you still with me?

I know what you're thinking, because you're thinking what I'm thinking. Once you get past your huge inner "OH, COME ON!" groan, you'll point out that Christians have rituals and supernatural beliefs about the nature of this world. They're also organized, with some groups being more hierarchical than others. Those are all of the trappings of what we call religion. It doesn't matter if you think that you have a personal relationship with Jesus or that Ganesha has an elephant's head. It's all religion.

Christians, are you still with me? Because here's where I try and bring it all together and make everybody, or maybe nobody, happy.

For the religious skeptics, we need to realize that calling Christianity a religion comes off as being dismissive. When you lump Christianity in there with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Paganism, and the crockfest that is Scientology, you're not acknowledging the very personal nature of Christianity.

I know what you're thinking. "But other religions are also deeply personal!"

Yes, they are. And when we're looking at it from the outside-in, that's what we're seeing. But for the believer, it's not the same thing as all of those other beliefs. Christians have something unique, and they want to acknowledge that.

Yeah, yeah, "But all religions are unique in their own way!"

Again, to the believer, this isn't what matters. The way that Christianity is unique is what's important.

For the Christians who are still reading, maybe you can see why the talking point of "it's a relationship not a religion" doesn't get much traction with us skeptics. For me, even if it turned out that your religion was 100% the truth, and you really, honestly, literally have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe, then I still can't get my head around the idea that it's not a religion.

I guess what I'm saying there is that Christians should say, "To me, it's more than just a religion." That demonstrates the personal nature of the belief while not ignoring the definition of the word "religion" as it's understood by most people. (And again, I know of plenty of Christians who have no problem with that word. If you're one of those Christians, why are you still reading this? This isn't for you! Geez.)

And if a Christian words it that way? What should the religious skeptic say?

Nothing. Let them have it. Because to them, it's not just a religion.

It's not just a religion in the same way that your mother isn't just "some lady". Yeah, she's "some lady" by the meaning of the term. She's simply "some lady" to most people on the planet. But she's not "some lady" to you.

And then when we're all done, we can rock out to the following:

Nobody reads a blog post about blog posts

2018-07-13T18:51:00.001-07:00

Two years.

It's been two years since I've written in this blog.

Sure, I've ranted a bit on Facebook, and I've even written some longer, thoughtful posts that very well could have been a blog post.

But I've neglected this blog.

I'm going to keep this short, because posts about not posting and/or plans for future posts aren't interesting. However, I feel like I should acknowledge the absence.

Lots has happened in those two years. My son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. I fell into a deep funk the day Trump was elected. I've been dealing with anxiety and depression (formally diagnosed even).

I've also read a lot of comic books. I want to write about them again.

I still really like beer. I don't drink much nowadays, but I suppose that I still have something to say as I haven't quit drinking. I just average a few a month as opposed to 1-2 a day.

I have started riding my bike a lot. I ride anywhere from 20-30 miles when I get a chance, which is usually once a week. Maybe I'll post about that.

But enough of this. I'm not even going to post this to social media. I'm just going to leave it here in case anybody notices the huge gap.

I have a few things on my mind. I'm going to write about at least one of them before the night is over.

San Francisco Comic Con

2016-09-04T22:08:00.000-07:00

Wonder Woman by Mike Mayhew

Since the departure of WonderCon to Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area has been making several attempts to replace what was easily the biggest comic book related event of Northern California. It was looking like the Big Wow Comicfest might have taken its place, but that seems to be a thing of the past, and it's been replaced by the Silicon Valley Comic Con. I didn't attend that one, mainly because it seemed like more of a media convention and I was still hoping that Big Wow might be making a return. (I'm not including the East Bay Comic Con. I've been to the past two of them, but it's a pretty small, although worthwhile, show.)

Since that idea is apparently a bust, I went ahead and bought a ticket to the San F rancisco Comic Con. The ticket price was a bit steep at $50 for a Saturday ticket, but I have been dying to go to a big show, so I ponied up. It didn't have nearly the star-power of the Silicon Valley show, and there weren't too many artists in attendance that I wanted to see, but when a buddy of mine expressed interest in going, I figured that was a good enough reason to at least check it out.

Overall, I think that it was a pretty good convention. While there weren't a lot of comics professionals there, the ones I got to see where kind of a big deal to a long-time comics fan like myself. For some reason, I've managed to go nearly 30 years of reading comics without meeting Mike Zeck, who drew one of the greatest Spider-Man stories, Kraven's Last Hunt. He's also the guy who designed Spidey's black costume.

I not only got his autograph on the first part of the aforementioned Kraven story, I had him sign the issue of Secret Wars that detailed how Spider-Man received the black costume. On top of that, I got the signatures of the inkers: Bob McLeod on Kraven's Last Hunt and John Beatty on Secret Wars. One more signature topped off the Secret Wars, and that was writer (and former editor in chief of Marvel Comics) Jim Shooter.

I also parted with some money when I bought some art prints with some classic covers that Zeck did, along with a really cool profile of The Punisher. (I had two Zeck-drawn Punisher posters hanging in my room when I was a kid.)

Writer, penciler, inker - all signed

Those guys were all some of the best in the business, but you don't find them doing much in comics lately. Zeck and Beatty informed me that they work more in licensing now rather than do the monthly comics grind. I'm assuming the same is true with Bob McLeod. (McLeod also signed the first two issues of The Amazing Spider-Man that were penciled by Todd McFarlane. In my opinion, his inks improved McFarlane's art. I told him so, but he said that McFarlane didn't think so.)

I did get to meet one artist who's currently putting out some great work, and that's Mike Mayhew. He has recently illustrated a couple of issues of Star Wars that feature the exploits of Obi Wan Kenobi and young Luke Skywalker, filling in some gaps between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. I got him to sign those tow comics, but I was disappointed to hear that there weren't any more issues like that in the works. I also got into an interesting conversation where I got some insight into the workings of Disney and Marvel regarding keeping all of the continuity straight between the movies and comic books. Just like with Zeck, I also purchased some pretty cool art prints from him. One was with Wonder Woman, one with Batgirl, and one with Jean Grey of the X-Men.

One other thing I observed was the overall quality coming from the independent comic book publishers. Usually it's pretty easy for me to bypass what they're selling, and maybe once in a while I'll see something interesting. This time I found myself passing on a lot of stuff that looked pretty cool. (But I did pick up a couple of them - most notably from Emet Comics. Their focus is female creators and female characters, but I was drawn to the obvious quality of the artwork. I haven't read them yet, so I can't speak to the quality of the stories. One way or the other, the female angle is definitely not just a gimmick.)

As for shopping, you'd be happy if you were looking to buy some classic comics (think Golden and Silver Age) as there were a few vendors specializing in those. I didn't see as many dealers selling trade paperbacks and graphic novels as I'm used to seeing, and I didn't see a whole lot of toys or cool T-shirts either.

They apologized for looking exhausted,
but they were good sports as I geeked out.

I only checked out one panel, and that was the one with Ian McDiarmid. You probably know him better as The Emperor from the Star Wars movies. He took audience questions and shared stories from filming the movies and his stage career. Fun fact - he does an uncanny impression of George Lucas.

Of course there were also plenty of cosplayers, which is a bigger deal now than when I started
reading comics. There were the ones you'd expect like Boba Fett, Stormtroopers, Deadpool, Spider-Man, and Batman. I only caught a few surprises like a 90s era Superboy and Captain America's dancers. (I did the closest thing to a catcall in my life when I saw them on the street, pointed at them and shouted, "Awesome!" They thanked me, so I guess I can keep my Not-a-sexual-harasser card.)

I'm glad I went, but I'm also glad that I just went with a friend and fellow comic book fan. I didn't bring the wife and kid, and I'm not sure if they would have enjoyed themselves as much as they did at Big Wow. There wasn't as much kid-friendly stuff, and it was a lot more crowded. It's not that I think my wife would have hated it, but I don't know if she would have wanted to stay as long as I did. Hopefully this is just the beginning for this con, and we'll see an even more impressive guest list for next year.

Suicide Squad - movie review

2016-08-12T19:19:00.001-07:00

For those who haven't read any of my comic book movie reviews before, I should probably start with the disclaimer that I'm almost always positive when I write about these films. In some cases, like Batman V. Superman, I could recognize the movie's shortcomings while still enjoying it. In other words, it's pretty tough to create something that I don't like so long as it's based on comic books.

With that said, I really wasn't going in to Suicide Squad with super high expectations. I've never read the comic, and the only characters that I cared about were the ones who were Batman-related. And while I realize that many people loved the trailers, I was a bit underwhelmed. That feeling only sank when the negative reviews started to pour in. I wasn't going to let that stop me from seeing the movie, but I continue to worry that Warner doesn't know how to handle its DC properties the way that Marvel Studios knows how to handle theirs.

Once again though, I'll say that while I understand the negative criticism, I still liked the movie. Much like DC's last effort, Batman V. Superman, I found this to be a pretty frustrating movie, only I have less personally invested in this particular property. I thought that the movie had a really great original style, but it seemed to be the victim of (once again) too much executive interference with the creative process. And Warner is still trying to artificially catch up to Marvel by throwing as many characters in one movie as possible. (How cool would it have been if we already knew most of these villains from various superhero movies and then have this become an anti-Avengers by having them all team up?)

One thing that I can definitely say for it is that the movie really kept up a nice, brisk pace up until the final act, which got caught up in the whole "Why are they all fighting this guy?" trap that so many of these movies do. I thought that the director, David Ayer, made good use of various classic rock songs throughout. Sometimes when people do that, it feels like they're ripping off Scorsese, but I guess it doesn't feel that way when it's done in this particular genre.

All right, here are some scattered thoughts:

Jared Leto as The Joker - I was more than willing to give Leto a chance, and I didn't really pay too much attention the fact that the guy seems to be a real creep. Obviously, Heath Ledger's performance is still fresh in a lot of people's minds, so that would be tough to top. Leto was going to have to take the character in a different direction if he was going to stand out? Did he do that? I guess, but he didn't really do anything all that interesting with the role at all. The Joker just felt like a generic bad guy.

I also think that, with the exception of the flashback scenes, the character felt pretty perfunctory in this movie. I'm not entirely sure what he added to the story other than that.

Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn - She was probably the perfect choice for this part. She's a very pretty woman, but she's also able to pull off crazy pretty well with that wide smile of hers. It was pretty clear that she looked to the character's original portrayal in Batman: The Animated Series for inspiration. (And you actually get to see her in the original outfit! And you quickly realize why they changed it.)

I think that we can blame the issues with The Joker on the fact that the movie had Harley in it, as her origin is so tied to that character. Still, Robbie's portrayal was interesting enough that I think that they could have had her merely hint at her origins.

Will Smith as Deadshot - I don't know too much about the character, but I liked Smith's portrayal. He's always pretty likable, and he was a good choice if they were going to make at least one of these villains have a bit of a heart. I'd be really happy to see more of him in other DC films.

I don't think that this is the sort of movie that will win over people who normally don't like comic book movies. It might even turn off a lot of people who like what Marvel has been putting out over the past decade. As I said, I get the negative reviews, and it's a bit of a mess toward the end. Still, there was enough for this comic book nerd to enjoy, and I hope to see it again (especially if there's a director's cut.)

Ghostbusters (2016) movie review

2016-07-20T21:35:00.002-07:00

I have a confession to make. I never saw the original Ghostbusters in the theater even though I'm pretty much the perfect age to have done so. (It came out when I was in the fourth grade.) Back when I was a kid, I was easily scared of anything that looked even remotely scary, and my neighbor describing the scene with the librarian ghost at the beginning was enough to frighten me away until years later when I finally saw it on video. After that, it quickly became one of my all-time favorite movies and I watched my crappy VHS copy of a copy over and over again.

I did see Ghostbusters 2 in the theater, and I remember being really excited for it. I went out of my way to see it on the last day of school of my freshmen year of high school. And even though my standards were a lot lower back then, I remember being really disappointed in the whole thing. It just felt like a less funny and less exciting version of the first one. I watched it again recently when I bought a blu-ray combo pack of both movies, and I continue to be disappointed.

When I heard about the current remake/reboot, I was interested. I most definitely did not join the chorus of fans who freaked out when there were going to be four female Ghostbusters this time around. The last one had four men, and that wasn't a problem. Why would four women be a problem? I also am not somebody who bemoans the "lack of originality" in movies, as I teach Shakespeare and that guy was all about rewriting previously told stories.

The only thing that I cared about was whether the movie was going to be good or not. Four women is fine so long as they are four funny and talented women. The story also had to be good. It had to capture the spirit of the original while not simply giving me what I've already seen before.

My hopes were raised when they announced the cast. I was only really familiar with Kristen Wiig, who I think is awesome. Even the weaker Saturday Night Live bits with her in it were usually worth watching just to see what she'd do. I also liked Bridesmaids, and she's hilarious as the yoga instructor in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. (You have to watch the extended edition of that movie to catch that scene.) I also think that Melissa McCarthy is pretty funny as well, as she had a lot of the best bits in the aforementioned Bridesmaids. I didn't know too much about Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm totally honest, I did have an opinion regarding the all-female buster casting. It made me root for this movie to succeed because I'm a big believer in the notion that we need more diverse and positive roles featuring women. I'd personally like to see more completely original stories with female protagonists, but this is a decent step in between male dominated action movies and a more diverse fare.

Still, I figured all of this would be for naught if the movie stunk, so while I say that I was rooting for it, I was rooting for its potential to be something good. I wasn't going to praise it no matter what.

Which leads me to the first preview.

Egads. That did not look good. I know that I'm not alone, as I heard a lot of other people chime in, including Kevin Smith on his podcast. In fairness to Smith, he was quick to blame whoever cut the trailer, as he couldn't imagine how that cast with director Paul Feig could possibly make something that looked so horrible. All of the gags were slapstick and obvious. I mean, there was an Exorcist reference. What year is this? And it didn't help that Leslie Jones's character seemed to be a stereotype of a black woman.

I really wanted to be wrong, but I was ready to accept that for the second time, there was going to be a lousy Ghostbusters movie.

My hopes raised a bit when I saw some other trailers, but not too much. I figured that I'd wait until the reviews came in, and if they were mostly positive then I'd make the effort to see it in the theater. Lucky for me, that was the case, and I went to see it with my wife.

I don't know if anybody is outright praising this movie, but I absolutely loved it. In a way, it made me hate the trailer even more, as it really did the film a disservice. Maybe the problem is that the really funny bits require a certain context. Whenever there was a silly slapstick moment, what was usually funny was what the other characters were saying or doing as it was happening. I'm eager to see the film again, as there were some moments where I was laughing so hard that I no doubt missed two or three other funny lines that came right after them.

What else did I like? I thought it did a really good job of capturing the heart and spirit of the original without being slavish to it. The characters didn't evenly line up with their male counterparts from the original. At best, you could say that Kate McKinnon's part was a combination of Egon and Venkman. Other than that, they all brought something new to the franchise.

Wiig and McCarthy didn't disappoint, and Jones's character rose above the stereotype to the point where I didn't even think about it anymore. It was really McKinnon who nearly stole the movie for me though. She was definitely not quite in her right mind, but she had enough charm to her that you could believe that she'd get away with it.

I was also pretty surprised with Chris Hemsworth, better known as Thor from the Marvel movies. I knew that he could be funny, as he's had some good bits as the Thunder god. However, he really got to show his comic timing in this one. He was a complete airhead, yet he still was able to inject his character with enough humanity to make him more than just a figure to laugh at.

I don't think that this is ever going to hold up to the original, but it was loads better than Ghostbusters 2, and hopefully if they do a sequel, they can outdo the previous franchise.

Hope for the Ark Encounter?

2016-07-12T21:39:00.001-07:00

Utnapishtim's, ahem...Noah's ark

Depending on how much you pay attention to issues regarding religion, you may or may not have heard of the Ark Encounter. In a nutshell, it's a museum devoted to the Biblical flood story, and it's a life-size reconstruction of Noah's boat. I suppose it's more of a construction than a reconstruction for the simple fact that NOAH'S ARK NEVER FRIKKEN' EXISTED.

Yeah, I'm being a little harsh, but if you think that the Noah story actually happened, or you even entertain the possibility that it happened, then the rest of this post isn't going to appeal to you. Unless you can provide some AMAZING evidence (you can't) of a global flood, I'm going to put flood believers into the same category as Scientologists who learn about Emperor Xenu and still stay in the organization anyway.

It opened on July 7th, and from what I've read, opening day didn't have quite the turnout that they were expecting. Maybe there aren't as many Biblical literalists as they were hoping for? Or maybe the literalists just don't care that much? Who knows? I'm not expert in these matters, and I haven't seen any official figures, but I have to wonder if this thing will one day go the way of Jim Bakker's Heritage USA, and become a monument to religious folly.

Let's just assume that I'm right and this thing will eventually go bankrupt and have to close down one day. Overall, this would be a good thing. Perhaps it's too bad that the state of Kentucky is losing out considering how many tax breaks Answers in Genesis (the company that built the thing) got for it, but the good far outweighs the bad. For starters, the place is basically devoted to spreading ignorance and anti-science. Even worse, it's targeted at children with its inclusion of dinosaurs. (It's funny how for some people the dinosaur thing is what puts it over the top into Crazy Town territory. Guess what? It's crazy without dinosaurs.) It will also be good to see the end of a place that has discriminatory hiring practices (no non-Christians, no gay people) while receiving taxpayer money.

With that said, I wouldn't want to see the place get torn down. I also wouldn't want to see it just sit there and rot. Here are some possibilities as to what can be done with it:

1. Turn it into a science museum. Have a big part explaining how flood geology is riddled with fallacies.

2. Have it be a museum devoted to mythology. Utilize much of what's there, and keep the dinosaurs in a section entitled "What happens when people take myths literally." Include displays for various flood myths, paying special attention to Utnapishtim and his similarities/differences with Noah.

3. Make a nautical museum. Yeah, it's in a landlocked part of the country. Well, who would be more starved for boat-related stuff than them? People on the coasts have their fill of that sort of a thing, thank you very much.

4. Make it a literal monument to religious folly. Have displays ranging from the weird to the outright dangerous like snake handlers and Jim Jones.

5. Why was the world flooded? Because of sin, right? Make it a museum of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. People will love it. Throw in some hookers while you're at it. See if the firmament opens and the waters pour forth.

Thoughts on the DC Rebirth

2016-06-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

Honestly, if push comes to shove, I'm more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy. The first comics I ever bought were Marvel, and it took a few years for me to actually start buying some DC titles as well. (Keep in mind that I started reading regularly back in the sixth grade.) This doesn't mean that I think that Marvel is "better", it's just that I've gravitated more to the House that Stan and Jack Built more than the Distinguished Competition. With that said, it's strange that I've written more about the various developments at DC several times now while not writing too much about Marvel.

And this brings me to DC's latest initiative, which has been called Rebirth, which is kinda making me hate DC Comics. Is it because the last major relaunch was a mere five years ago? Is it because it feels gimmicky? Is it due to the confusing continuity?

No, it's because I pretty much want to read everything that they're publishing. While I'm certain this problem will not be able to sustain itself for a long period of time, I'm finding myself intrigued by everything I've read so far, and I'm still looking forward to some titles. Oh, and did I mention that most of them come out twice a week? There's still plenty of stuff from Image, Boom, and IDW that I want to buy, not to mention the offerings from some random company owned by Disney. (And I should mention that company is still turning out great Star Wars comics.)

For those who aren't currently reading comics, or haven't been following the news of the relaunch, here's the brief synopsis of what's going on:

Less than five years ago, DC canceled its entire line and relaunched absolutely every title along with a bunch of new titles. There were 52 total, hence the name The New 52. It was a controversial move, and while there were definitely a lot of great comics to come out in that period (particularly Batman by Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo) overall a lot of fans, like myself, started to lose interest. While it might have helped to bring in a lot of new readers, I think that it might be safe to say that a lot of us felt like this new continuity was missing what we loved about DC Comics (even though we might not have realized that this is what we loved) and that's a sense of history. Or better put, the legacy of many classic characters had pretty much gone up in a puff of smoke. (The Flash is probably the one character who suffered the most from this.)

Rebirth isn't completely rebooting continuity so much as bringing back what was lost with the previous relaunch. It all started with a one-shot titled simply Rebirth, and I think that Mavel's Tom Breevort said it best: "I thought it was -- and I mean this in a good way -- the most 'DC' comic that I'd read in a long while." From there, a bunch of new Rebirth special issues and new #1's hit the stands, and I've read pretty much all of them. I picked up the usual suspects with the Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman titles, but I also revisited Green Lanterns and gave Aquaman, Green Arrow, and Titans a shot.

And I can tell you, there isn't a weak link in the bunch. I'm obviously going to have to stop dropping titles simply because I won't be able to afford everything, but I think that it's just going to come down to sticking with my favorite characters.

Anyway, here are some highlights:

Batman #1 - I don't think that I've read anything by Tom King before, but holy crap that's the way that you start a first issue. I don't want to give away too much, but it's really one long and well-constructed action sequence. However, there's a real emotional heft to it, and the last page has me dying to find out what happens next.

Green Arrow - I don't know if I'm going to be able to stick with this one, but I like the interaction between him and Black Canary. One of my oldest comics is a Green Lantern/Green Arrow reprint, so I always associate her with Ollie. I haven't been following either one of them in the New 52, so I didn't even realize that their history had been taken away. I imagine that longtime fans will be really happy with this.

Mick Gray, inker on Superman to the left, me babbling on at the right.
Courtesy of Flying Colors Comics.

Superman - Geez, but I can't think of a time when I've been this excited to pick up every Superman related title. Maybe it was back when Kurt Busiek was on Superman and Geoff Johns was on Action Comics? Anyway, I'm not sure how much this one will appeal to people who are totally new to comics, but I can't be the only veteran fan who's intrigued about what's happening here. In a nutshell, Superman is dead. But Superman, from the pre-New 52 continuity is very much alive, and he's ready to be the Man of Steel for the universe he now inhabits. He has some problems though as Lex Luthor had ideas about doing the same thing. Oh, and this Superman is married. And he's got a kid who doesn't know his own strength.

And Gene Yang has a book with a Chinese Superman? I'm down for that one as well.

The Flash - I'm doubly excited about this one since Joshua Williamson is writing it. He's currently writing two of my favorite Image books, Birthright and Nailbiter. Hopefully he'll be given the freedom to really bring his best to the Scarlet Speedster, as he's great at writing about personal relationships.

Wonder Woman - I lost interest in her adventures shortly after the conclusion of Brian Azarello's run, but this one has me back on board. This one really exemplifies what Rebirth is all about, as her origin underwent a heavy revision in the New 52. The Rebirth one-shot didn't do much other than set up a story to come, but it looks like the theme is "Who is Wonder Woman?" which has a lot of potential considering the heavy symbolism that is inherent with the character.

Green Lantern - I am a huge fan of what Geoff Johns did with Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern mythology. I kinda lost interest in the title when there was that whole New Gods business, and I really just didn't think that Billy Tan was a good fit for the title. I like the setup for the new Green Lanterns series, as it focuses on the two newest recruits for Sector 2814: Simon Baz and Jessica Cruz. The setup is a pretty good one, as the two of them have to share a lantern battery, and the Justice League will have to do their training since the Green Lantern Corps is missing in action. I don't know what they have in store for Hal Jordan in his book, but I'll at least check it out.

The Green Lantern concept already had a rich history and mythology to it, and that only became even more true under Geoff Johns. Hopefully this will continue the tradition.

No doubt I will have more to say as this reboot plays itself out. In the meantime, I'm excited and a bit daunted as to how much good stuff there is to read.

Hopes for Episode VIII

2016-06-17T22:50:00.000-07:00

I've had the idea for this particular blog entry swimming around in my head for several months now, but after watching The Force Awakens yet again last night, I thought it was time that I finally sat down and wrote it. Another bit of motivation is that the movie is coming out next year, and no doubt some actual plot points are going to start being revealed soon.

Just to make one thing clear, I'm among the fans who loved Episode VII. I could nitpick at some things, but I'm really not interested in doing that. I also didn't have a problem with the fact that the movie's plot echoed the original as much as it did, as I thought that the characters and their personalities were all so very different from what we've seen before that it didn't matter seeing them go through the same motions that the original characters did.

I'm obviously looking forward to Episode VIII, and here are some of my hopes for what we can see next, some of them bordering on concerns.

1. Let's go in a new direction - Again, I have no problem with the plot echoes from The Force Awakens. But I want to see this take the audience into some unexpected places. I think it's safe to say that it will be darker, just as The Empire Strikes Back was to its predecessor. There will probably also be some revelations involving family relationships. With that said, we can definitely go somewhere new with this considering we have entire galaxy to play in. I have a feeling that the masterminds behind the saga have the same idea in mind.

2. Throw Rey for a loop - I have a feeling that we'll see this happen anyway, but one of the complaints about Rey in the previous movie was that she was a bit of a "Mary Sue" and was pretty much good at anything. Perhaps they were overcompensating now that there was a female protagonist? Maybe, but I don't think so. If we look at the previous two protagonists, Anakin and Luke, they both had it relatively easy compared to Rey. Sure, Anakin was a slave, but he was raised by his mother, and his slavemaster, Watto, was about as benevolent as one could possibly be. Luke had foster parents. Rey? She was an orphan, and it seems like she had basically been on her own on a junkyard, desert world ever since she was a little girl. She's had to fend entirely for herself, and it was not so strange that she would already have some grasp on the Force once it became "awakened".

Still, she did manage to take on each challenge quite well, and much of the fun was how surprised everybody was by her. Who the hell was this girl who could do so much and was channeling the Force like a boss? (Anybody else get the feeling that Han knew who she was? He kept giving knowing looks, and the camera cut away right after Maz Kanata asked him, "Who is this girl?")

With the next film, the bad guys need to be ready for her. And she just needs to barely escape with her life, perhaps with the help of her friend, Finn.

3. More new stuff to look at - Say what you will about the prequels, but they gave us a whole lot of new stuff to look at as far as different planets and spaceships were concerned. Yeah, we have different planets with the current trilogy so far, but is Jakku really all that different from Tatooine? Maybe they're running out of ideas, but I have to imagine that there are some things that nobody's done yet. Maybe we can even revisit one of those planets that we barely caught a glimpse of during Order 66 in Revenge of the Sith.

And while it's not a big deal, why the heck are they still flying X-Wing fighters and TIE fighters? Sure, they're a little bit different, but I would have to imagine that some new spaceship designs have come along in thirty years time.

4. Who is Snoke? I sure hope that they figured this out when they first wrote him into the script. If he's just some run of the mill dark Jedi, that would be pretty lame. If he's a Sith, he violates the Rule of Two. There has to be something behind him, and I really think that his origin needs to be backdated at least before the original trilogy, if not the prequels.

5. Lightsaber battles - The best lightsaber battle,visually, was the one in The Phantom Menace. Sure, it didn't have as much at stake as the one in Empire, so ultimately it's not quite as engaging, but it was finally a taste of the Jedi when they were in their prime. Obviously, Rey and Kylo Ren wouldn't be on the same level, but I think that they need to start approaching it in the next one. Personally, I would like to see a full restoration of the Jedi order, minus their dogmatic approach, by the time we get to Episode IX.

6. Kylo Ren is finishing what Vader started - This is just pure speculation. What, exactly, did Vader "start"? Is Ren referring to Vader's desire to "bring order to the galaxy"? Or could he be talking about how Vader tossed a Sith Lord down a pit, and with the rise of Snoke, somebody needs to finish wiping the evil force practitioners out of the galaxy? Then why join Snoke in the first place? Perhaps it's to get closer to him. Maybe only a true master of both the light and the dark can defeat the ultimate evil. I don't know, but I wonder if there is more to his plan than what we've been told so far.

7. Lando. Lando system? Lando's not a system, he's a man. And we need to find out what he's been up to. I'd like to think that he's living comfortably and having a nice retirement.

8. Lobot - Whatever happened to him? C'mon!

X-Men: Apocalypse - movie review

2016-05-29T22:32:00.002-07:00

There was a lot that I liked about the recent installment of the X-Men franchise, but it was also missing something important that would have let it rise above just being average. It's certainly not the downturn that the third movie was (although I don't think it was as horrible as everybody says it was - the first Wolverine movie was far, far worse). However, it also is a bit of a letdown after the stellar Days of Future Past.

The major problem is that there simply wasn't anything interesting about the villain, Apocalypse. I could get over the fact that he looked kinda lame, but other than that there just wasn't anything very compelling about him. One thing that has always been good about these films is that there were always conflicts between the good guys and bad guys where things went beyond just the physical and were downright personal. With Apocalypse, he basically just has a god complex, but his ill-defined powers pretty much justify them.

That said, all of the good guys were interesting, and it was cool to see the character arcs for Mystique and Magneto get carried through into this chapter. Sure, it's not doing exactly what the comic books did, but by this point they need to do things that make sense in context of the previous films and not force the characters into predetermined roles.

Speaking of making sense though, I probably should point out that by this point, the continuity of these films make absolutely no sense at all. There are things that happen in this film that flat-out contradict what happened in the previous films. I'm pretty sure that they don't even really care, and they figure that maybe the time travel hijinks of the last film can miraculously explain it all away. Whatever, that's not very important to me, but I know that it will bug some people.

Anyway, there were a lot of great moments and highlights of this film, but I don't want to give away too much. I'll just say what I knew going in but yet still managed to thoroughly enjoy. For one, Quicksilver comes back, and they do a super-speed scene that might very well rival the one from the last film. Wolverine gets a brief scene that essentially undoes the damage from his lousy origin film, and it's a good one. However, I have to wonder if everything leading up to that scene detracted from the main plot, and we could have given Apocalypse more motivation. We also get to see a bit of Phoenix, and that's always cool.

One thing that I also liked was how Alexandra Shipp was a big step up from Halle Berry as Storm. Berry is a fine actress, but I never really felt like she did very much for that part. Shipp managed to hold an accent, and I was slightly surprised to see that the actress is from Phoenix, Arizona. (I figured that they might have gotten an actual African to play her.)

Speaking of Storm, it should also be noted that the ladies definitely get a lot to do in this story. They get some of the biggest moments and they're some of the most powerful players. While I think that The Avengers franchise is better overall, Marvel Studios could take some notes from what's going on with the X-Men movies.

If you've generally enjoyed most of the X-Men movies so far, you're probably going to like this one just fine while not being blown away. If they've never done anything for you, or you've been overall pretty ambivalent about them, this one won't change your mind. Brian Singer has done a fine job with this franchise, but I'm personally pretty eager to see some new blood show us what they can do.

Calm down about Hydra Cap

2016-05-28T11:50:00.001-07:00

I don't think that anybody would argue the notion that I love comic books. I've been reading them regularly for nearly 30 years now, and I've never gone more than a month without a trip to the comic book store during that time. It's a basic part of my life, and to quit reading them to me would be as strange as it would be for some people to quit watching TV or attending sporting events. I'm always excited to talk about them when I get the chance, to the point where I do a whole lesson on comics and superheroes with both my freshmen and senior English classes. (And from the comments I get at the end of the year, that's easily my most popular lesson.)

With that said, I really can't stand comics fandom sometimes. I've already written about this once, but the recent brouhaha over Captain America has prompted me to return to my blog and give my two cents. For those who don't know, the controversy is over a recent revelation in the new Steve Rogers: Captain America series. It turns out that Cap is a member of the evil Hydra organization, and this has been true ever since he was a child. (Flashbacks show his mother being recruited by a Hydra agent.) The reveal came at the end of the issue, and we don't know much else.

And fans are freaking out. Many of them are saying that this completely destroys the character. Some of them are saying that it's a slap in the face to his Jewish American creators, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, since Hydra had ties to the Nazis. (In the sense that any fictional organization can have ties to a real organization.) Even those who aren't letting it upset them are dismissing it all as a cheap gimmick - merely a stunt to bring in new readers.

Here's my response:

ONLY THE FIRST CHAPTER HAS COME OUT.

Is it possible that this story will be a slap in the face to the character? (Funny how fans don't seem to lob this comment at Frank Miller, who craps all over Superman's legacy in his various Batman stories.) Sure, it very well could be. But as of right now, all we know is that he's been a member of Hydra all along. At least, it seems like that's what it is. We do not know the circumstances. Maybe he's trying to destroy it from within and has some kind of master plan? Maybe they're mind-controlling him? Maybe he thinks that by being part of the organization, he can somehow contain it? The point is, we don't know. The explanation may turn out to be really horrible, and later those fans will feel justified. However, there's also the possibility that there's a really good story behind this that will make Cap stand out as an even greater hero than ever before?

What about the charges of this just being a gimmick? I don't see why that's necessarily a problem. It certainly is a gimmick, but so what? It's bad if it's a gimmick and a poor story, but being a gimmick doesn't necessarily take away any artistic merit from a work. A lot of superhero comics are based on gimmicks in the first place because the publishers were trying to sell stories. What do you think inspired team books like Justice League of America and The Avengers in the first place? How is that NOT a gimmick? I even think that Paul McCartney would be the first to admit that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band was a gimmick, but that's one of the greatest rock albums of all time. Shakespeare wrote about what people wanted to see and no doubt employed what then would have been seen as a gimmick in his time. (He did make a living off of his art, ya know. I doubt he would have done that if he ignored what the masses wanted to see.)

Lastly, can we give the writer, Nick Spencer, a little bit of credit here? The man has shown that he understands Captain America's value as a symbol with the Sam Wilson: Captain America comic. I had said that I wouldn't be too interested in that series if they made Sam (The Falcon) the new Captain America and made it so all of America was fine with the idea of there being a black Captain America. Spencer went with that idea, with a whole lot of parallels to the national freak-out that happened when Obama became the Commander in Chief. He even managed to get the Fox News talking heads all discombobulated. In other words, he has earned the benefit of the doubt.

As for me, I dug the first issue, as there was a lot more going on than the "gotcha!" ending. And it should be noted that the art by Jesus Saiz is awesome. I'm looking forward to how this all plays out. If you are a comics reader and don't find it interesting, then that's fine. However, stop making sweeping judgments based solely on the first chapter of what will no doubt prove to be a lengthy saga. When it's all said and done, then let's evaluate it as to whether it's a highlight or a low point for the character. And even if it is a low point, the character will survive. If he could survive the cancellation of his series at the end of World War II, he'll get through this.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Captain America: Civil War - movie review

2016-05-08T13:49:00.003-07:00

The most significant thing for me about seeing this latest Marvel Studios film is that it's the first one that my wife and I brought my son to see in the theater. He's five, and he's seen pretty much all of them on video. When he sat through Captain America: Winter Soldier, and was absolutely fascinated with the brainwashed Bucky Barnes, I figured that he'd be fine to see the next installment in the theater.

How did he do? He got a bit fidgety during the long bouts of dialogue, but he was pretty riveted whenever somebody was in costume, and he was definitely enthralled every time there was a battle - especially if it involved The Winter Soldier. (Not sure why that character fascinates him so much.)

Here's my son's short review: "It was great and a lot of things happened."

As for my thoughts, anybody who reads my reviews knows that I'm going to find something to like in pretty much every comic book movie, especially the ones coming from Marvel Studios. Sometimes I add special caveats. With this one, let's just say that if you've enjoyed most of them, then you will probably like this one as well and might even include it in your top three. (Which is where I put it. Is it as great as the first Avengers film? Not sure if I'm willing to go there just yet. I'm not even sure if it's better than The Winter Soldier. But I have an easier time saying it's better than pretty much every other one.)

For those who don't know, this film borrows a story right out of the comics, while shifting around some details in order to make it fit a new storytelling format. The basic concept is that the governments of the world want to crack down on superheroes and basically make them accountable to the United Nations. Captain America, burned by his experiences with SHIELD, isn't willing to do that. His good friend Iron Man is, and the two wind up fighting with each one recruiting their own mini-army of like-minded heroes.

This movie does a nice job of picking up threads from both the previous Cap movie and Age of Ultron. Not only that, but there's a real arc with Captain America, who has gone from being a loyal boyscout in the first film to downright cynical of authority. Iron Man has made almost the reverse trajectory, as he's grown such a conscience that he's more than eager to have himself restrained. One could easily see each one of them fighting on the opposite side of this issue in each of their first films. (Think of the scene in Iron Man II where Tony Stark speaks before Congress.)

Another thing that was handled well was all of those characters. Did it make the movie a bit longer than it should have been? Perhaps. But I also enjoyed the big superhero fight where you got to see Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Spider-Man, The Black Panther, etc. all go at it. Did all of this make it feel more like an Avengers movie than a Captain America movie? Maybe. But the focus always came back on Cap, with Iron Man taking a close second.

Anyway, here are some random thoughts:

Spider-Man - Tom Holland is getting a lot of praise in his turn as the webslinger, and it's well-earned. While I wouldn't go so far as to say his appearance in this makes it the "best Spider-Man film" (that still goes to Spider-Man 2) I will say that the upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming has the potential to be the best Spider-Man film. It was great to see him as a kid, and even better, a guy who talks way too much while fighting. (And just like in the comics, the other characters are keen to point out that he needs to shut up.) Was his role totally necessary in this film? Maybe not. But just like you could cut out the bit in Hamlet where the Danish Prince interacts with a gravedigger and not have it affect the plot, I can't imagine this film without it.

The Black Panther - King T'Challa was a welcome addition to the story as well, and unlike Spider-Man, his role was far more necessary to the story. He functioned as somebody who was looking at everything from an outsider's perspective, which by this point the audience isn't going to be at. I don't want to say much more in fear of spoiling the plot, so I'll conclude this bit by saying that the action scenes were top-notch. He definitely has a style all his own. Also, he had a character arc that didn't feel forced despite his limited screen time.

Zemo - As an old fan of The Thunderbolts, I'm particularly fond of Baron Zemo as a villain, and I don't feel like this character was close enough to his comic book counterpart to even justify having the same name. Was this guy a decent villain? I suppose, and he certainly could have had more to do. I'm just hoping that maybe he can evolve into something closer to his comic book counterpart.

Ant-Man - Upon repeated viewings of his solo film, the character has grown on me. He was a welcome addition to this one as well. Even though his role was a small one, he nearly upstaged Spider-Man, which isn't an easy feat.

Batman v. Superman - Is it fair to even compare this film with that one? I think so. It's a superhero film. It's part of a bigger franchise. It features a lot of characters and hints at an even larger universe. But here's the deal - even though I gave a fairly decent review to BvS, the more I think about that one, the more I think about its flaws. I still insist that it had a lot of good stuff going for it. (And I'm excited that Ben Affleck is moving forward with his solo Batman film that he will direct.) However, it was a mess. Basically DC/Warner is trying to do what Marvel is doing, only they're not willing to do the legwork that's involved with this kind of universe building. Imagine if Civil War was the film that came out right after the first Iron Man. It's hard to have a lot at stake with Batman fighting Superman when it's their first film. However, it was heartbreaking to see Captain America and Iron Man pound away at each other because we've seen a friendship grow, develop, and evolve before it all went south.

Berkeley Rep - Macbeth

2016-03-28T08:22:00.004-07:00

Lady Macbeth

Didn't I just review Macbeth? Indeed I did, but that was the recent movie version starring Michael Fassbender. I also got to see Berkeley Rep's production yesterday, so here's what I thought about that one.

Overall, I thought it was really good. It's a bit hard for me to evaluate this play, I realized, because I know it so well after having taught it for so many years. I constantly find myself anticipating lines and even thinking which act and scene we happen to be on at any given moment. Still, I found myself getting lost in the story, and this really zipped by. (The entire show was over two hours, which is actually one of Shakespeare's shorter plays.) My wife agreed, and she really liked it a lot. The two ladies sitting next to us seemed to enjoy it too, and I got a chance to talk to them a bit about the play when one of them said to me after the show, "You seem to know a lot about this play." (She overheard some of my comments to my wife during the intermission.) So, I answered some of their questions and got to give a bit of subtext and some of my own interpretation of what's going on.

It was a pretty straightforward telling of the story, keeping the historical setting (anachronisms and all). It made good use of Berkeley Rep's stage and even incorporated some video during the scene where the apparitions deliver their prophecies to Macbeth, but other than that, there was no modern twist. That's neither good nor bad, but I figure worth noting. And while I don't necessarily have the play memorized line-by-line, I know it well enough to know that they really didn't cut out a whole lot. Little bits were trimmed here and there, but it had every scene - minus that one with Hecate that Shakespeare probably didn't even write.

Macduff

One particular wise move that I caught was when Macduff asks Ross to not hold back the truth in the fourth act. The actual line is, "Be not a niggard of your speech." They changed it to "Be not a miser of your speech." That's pretty smart considering that: 1, most people don't know the word "niggard" and don't know that it has no connection to the word "nigger" aside from an unfortunate homophonic coincidence; and 2. both Macduff and Ross were played by black men. Sure, Shakespeare nerds like myself would know that nothing racial was said, but much of the audience would no doubt get distracted by that and taken completely out of a colorblind interpretation where black men can be thanes of Medieval Scotland.

Here's what I thought of the key players in the production:

Conleth Hill as Macbeth - I definitely got to see something here that I haven't seen before. He was actually a pretty jovial guy, which might seem like an odd choice, but Hill was able to also fill him with a nervous sort of energy at the same time. It was like his jolly nature was a cover for the dark thoughts that were constantly percolating deep within him. I did feel like some of his lines toward the end felt more recited than acted, but overall it was a really good performance and he created a believable dramatic arc.

Macbeth, the witches, and an apparition

Frances McDormand as Lady Macbeth - She was one of the main reasons why my wife and I wanted to see the show, and I'm pleased to say that she did the entire part in her Fargo accent. Nah, just kidding. She was great, of course. McDormand didn't do anything surprising or risky with the performance, but it was still one of the best parts of the play. The one thing that I did like, which might not have been entirely her but part of a collaboration, was how her madness seemed to stem from the fact that her husband was shutting her out of his plans once the first murder was complete.

Korey Jackson as Macduff - This is an important part to get right. Obviously, Macduff is key to the plot, but you also need to have somebody who contrasts sharply with Macbeth. I don't know if the choice was deliberate, but I love the fact that he wore a red cape throughout the story, which might make a modern audience think of a superhero. Because in many ways, that's what Macduff is. If you ever watch some of those old episodes of Batman: The Animated Series, the story will follow the villain's fall from grace, and then it's up to Batman to come in and stop him (or her). That's Macduff's purpose here as well, and he should carry a certain nobility and sense of decency about him. Jackson was the right choice if that's what they were going for.

Honestly, there wasn't a weak link in the entire production. It was cool seeing a lot of familiar faces from Calshakes as well, and these actors always deliver. Was it cool to see some big-name celebrities? Sure, but everybody else was up to the same level.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Movie Review

2016-03-26T16:47:00.001-07:00

I was going to wait a few more days to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice but I found myself getting involved in too many online discussions about it that I was getting bombarded with spoilers. So, I seized the opportunity to see it this afternoon and just got back home about an hour ago.

I wasn't in too much of a rush to see this one, honestly. I was disappointed with Man of Steel and this looked to be more of the same from director Zack Snyder. I didn't think that I would hate it, just that it wouldn't live up to its potential. When I started to see the reviews pour in, I really started to fear the worst (actually, that started with a few somewhat lame looking previews).

Basically, I'm disappointed in the direction that DC/Warner is taking with their shared cinematic universe. They're trying to catch up with Marvel Studios, but they're not necessarily learning the right lessons. They see that it's cool to have a bunch of superheroes in one movie, but they don't want to take the time to build up those characters in their own movies first before rushing to the Avengers goal post. Plus, they got off to a rocky start with the aforementioned Man of Steel and the trainwreck that was Green Lantern. (Which I'm pretty sure is considered apocrypha by now.)

So, what did I think now that I finally saw it? I actually really liked it a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again. This isn't to say that it doesn't have problems - because it definitely does. It also doesn't mean that I'm going to echo the cries of "the critics don't know what they're talking about!" Most of the criticism that I read was pretty fair, and while the negative points don't bother me as much as they did some people, I can see how they might detract from somebody's enjoyment of this film.

Here's what I thought about various aspects of the movie, in no particular order. Oh, and SPOILERS.

Batfleck - Unlike a lot of fans, I did not bemoan the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman. I thought it was an interesting choice. This doesn't mean that I thought it was a good idea, but I have been surprised by so many unconventional choices (Heath Ledger as the Joker anybody?) that I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now it sounds like a lot of people are praising him for his performance. So, what's my verdict? I definitely lean more toward the praise than the lamentation. I don't know if this is the "best" Batman, but I can't say that it's worse than either Christian Bale or Michael Keaton. He certainly looks the part more than Keaton, and his Batman voice is less over the top than Bale's. Overall, good job, Ben. If I ever see you while crashing the movie set to Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season, I shall shout: "Affleck, you were the bomb in Batman v Superman, yo!"

Gal Gadot - I had a good feeling about this casting choice, and those feelings were justified. While I might have preferred a bit more of a muscular Wonder Woman, I can overlook that. (If I can overlook Michael Keaton as Batman, I can get over a more slender Amazon Princess.) Aside from that, she's exactly what I wanted in a Wonder Woman - beautiful and yet totally convincing that she could kick your ass. I also got a bit more than I hoped for, as she has an accent (the character isn't American, after all) and she actually looks Mediterranean. Props to Linda Carter, but we don't need another Wonder Woman who looks like she's of Northern European stock. (Personally, she's one character where I wouldn't mind if they cast a woman of any ethnicity.) Oh, and the best part of her performance was how she clearly relished being in combat. Now THAT'S Wonder Woman.

Luthor - I actually think that this was one of the weak spots of the movie. I was actually pretty excited that an unlikely choice like Jesse Eisenberg got to play the part, but I feel like he's just doing "Generic Super Villain" with this role. I was kind of hoping that he'd basically do what he did in The Social Network only more menacing.

The Story - There's a lot that works. For one, Batman is given a really good motivation for wanting to take down Superman. I'm not sure if his sudden change of heart was all that believable though unless one takes in the entire Batman mythology as a whole. Aside from that, this movie did suffer from trying to cram too much into one movie. The fight with Doomsday would have felt totally anticlimactic if it weren't for the chance to see Wonder Woman kicking some serious butt. I'm sure that with subsequent viewings, I'll notice more plot holes and inconsistencies, as that sort of thing happens when you try and put too much into one movie.

And yes, much of this was a setup for the future Justice League movie. Do those parts work? Yeah, sure. Could the movie have done without them? Yeah. All they needed to do was make a brief mention of the fact that other metahumans exist. We didn't need a whole scene that served as a preview of franchises to come.

I guess I felt the same as I did with Man of Steel. There were parts where I felt emotionally invested, and then there were parts where it just felt like it was dragging on.

Final note - I don't think that it's possible to give an "objective" movie review, as the nature of the beast is subjective. However, when reading my reviews of superhero movies, one should always keep in mind that I'm always going to be partial to them and find something good to say for the sheer fact that they put superheroes up on the screen. Perhaps a good gauge is for me to put it on my list where I rank the comic book adaptations. It would definitely be in the top half - but perhaps not too much higher than that. Time will tell if it rises or drops.

But I will say this - it currently ranks below Affleck's rendition of Daredevil on Rotten Tomatoes. That's crazy. Maybe it's just because the bar has gotten really high since then with the various Marvel studio movies and Christopher Nolan Batman films. But there is not a moment in this movie that's worse than Affleck and his wife fighting on a swingset.

Macbeth (2015) movie review

2016-03-12T20:05:00.003-08:00

When I first heard about the latest film adaptation of "The Scottish Play" starring Michael Fassbender, I got pretty excited. I like the actor, and I've been hoping that a new version of the film would come along that I could show to my high school senior English class. I currently show them the 1971 version that Roman Polanski directed. While it still holds up, and I am fairly fond of it, I was hoping that one with a more modern sensibility would come along that my students could relate to a bit better. (The 2006 version starring Sam Worthington couldn't quite cut the mustard, and the 2010 PBS production starring Patrick Stewart, while good, didn't quite give me what I wanted either.)

I got even more excited when I saw the trailer. Were we actually going to get the battle scene that the bleeding Captain describes in the first act? It sure looked like it. Perhaps we'd even see poor MacDonwald get "unseamed from the nave to the chops". Other moments got me excited, like the way Fassbender delivers the line about how his mind is "full of scorpions". I've never quite seen it done that way before. Usually he's just lamenting his guilty conscience, but this version carried a "Man, I've really gone and done it THIS time!" vibe.

The big disappointment? It didn't play in any theaters near me. My local theater that would have normally played this sort of a thing closed down a few years ago, and the closest one that was playing it was all the way in San Francisco. (It's about an hour away from me. Not ridiculously far, but a bit inconvenient.) There may or may not have been other means of viewing the film that may or may not have been entirely legal, but those wound up not working out for various quality and/or virus-related issues.

When I saw that it was coming out on Blu-Ray, I decided to just take a chance and buy the damn thing. (I can provide a receipt!) I figure even if I didn't like it, I'd be voting with my wallet to encourage the film industry to keep making Shakespeare adaptations. I started watching it late last night and finished it this afternoon. In short - I absolutely loved it. I don't want to make a hasty declaration that it's my favorite film adaptation of a Shakespeare play, but I wouldn't be surprised if I list it among my favorites a decade or two from now.

Before I go any further, I should probably point out that there are some SPOILERS. How the heck do you spoil a four hundred year old play? (He dies at the end!) Obviously, I can't spoil the basic story, but the reason why one sees a new version of any of Shakespeare's plays, be it on the stage or on film, is to see how a new director and actors will interpret something that's been done so many times before. Director Justin Kurzel takes a lot of liberties with the text, but I'd be disappointed if he didn't as there are plenty of versions that remain word-for-word the same. (Ever see the 1983 version that PBS did? Holy crap in a bucket but it's more boring than watching an inflatable swimming pool deflate.) Of course, there's always a certain irony in purists complaining about people putting their own spin on Shakespeare's material considering that's what he did with almost every play he wrote. Macbeth may be based in history, but it's even less historical than Mel Gibson's Braveheart. So, I'm going to give away some of the twists and interpretations, and if you want to be surprised, you should stop reading at this point.

I should probably also note that I'm somebody who knows this play backward and forward, and my review is really for people who are already familiar with the play. If you don't know it at all, you'll probably just wind up being confused.

Anyway, here's what I thought about various aspects of it, in no particular order:

The cinematography - Sweet Jeebus, but this is a gorgeous looking film. Watch it on your biggest TV, and be sure to watch it on Blu-Ray. This made me regret not seeing it on the big screen even more, but they really took the time to do what you can only do on film and can't do on the stage. If you're going to translate it to a different medium, then play to that medium's strengths.

Justin Kurzel's vision - I would hope that even people who do not like this version could admit that Kurzel definitely had a vision here and he achieved what he set out to do. It really streamlined what is already a pretty rapidly paced story (for Shakespeare's standards). The focus was sharply on Macbeth and what was going on in his mind, and various political and cultural subtexts are pushed aside.

Marion Cottillard's Lady Macbeth - I have a feeling that this performance will reward repeated viewings. I honestly wasn't thrilled about this piece of casting - not that I think she's a bad actor. Maybe it's just because I was more excited about Fassbender. That said, she and Kurzel created an arc for the character that hadn't ever occurred to me before. Oftentimes Lady Macbeth is portrayed as being totally wicked and just gets in over her head. However, it should be noted that she gets less and less involved with Macbeth's evil plans as the play goes on. I always attributed that to the fact that he shuts her out because of how manipulative and cold she was at the start. With this version, it's not so much that she gets pushed away as she wants less and less to do with him. This ultimately makes everything make even more sense when she completely loses her mind at the end, as she realizes that her initial push merely opened up Pandora's box.

Oh, yeah, what about Fassbender, anyway? - Overall, I think that he did a great job. I'll admit that there were a few parts where it felt like he was reciting lines moreso than performing the part of the character, but the good bits far outweigh the bad, and the REALLY good bits (like the scene with Banquo's ghost) made up for it even more. I recommend watching the bonus features of the disc, as the actor explains that he was playing the part of a man who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which makes A LOT of sense when you consider how he was out there fighting on the front lines in a time where the battles were up-close and personal and the blood of your enemy would splatter all over you.

The music - Jed Kurzel's score is hard to ignore, and it really adds to the overall mood of the film. I am reluctant to compare this all to a music video, but there are certainly some comparisons that can be made. You can get a pretty good sense of it if you watch the trailer.

The changes - I'm not going to list off every change/interpretation of this film, but let me just make the general statement that a lot of it involves taking bits that were soliloquies directed to the audience and having the characters say them directly to another character. For instance, when Lady Macbeth talks of her husband being "too full of the milk of human kindness" she says it directly TO HIM. And you know what? It works. It even works better than having it just be her thoughts.

Another interesting bit is when Macbeth speaks to Banquo's murderer just before the dinner/Banquo's ghost scene. In the text, it's all an aside so only those two and the audience can hear. In this one, Macbeth says it loud enough for people to hear, as he's already losing touch with reality.

A more significant change involves the circumstances of Malcolm fleeing to England. (Donalbain is completely cut out of this version.) In the play, he leaves after everybody finds out that his dad has been killed. Honestly, I've always found that to be an all-too convenient plot point. With this version, Macbeth gives the line about how his dad is dead right in front of Duncan's murdered body, as if to say, "Yeah, I'm the one who did this. What the hell are you going to do about it? I'll kill you, too."

While there are a lot of other changes, I never felt like any of them were there just for the sake of doing things differently. Each one either raised the stakes or simply provided me with a new way to think about a play that I've read so many times. If you're a purist, you'll no doubt be upset, but I have a hard time empathizing with that point of view in the first place, as I've already pointed out.

So, will I show this one to my class now? Honestly? No. As much as I loved it, I'm afraid that it will just cause too much confusion. I'm already spending a lot of time emphasizing the difference between what Shakespeare wrote and what they see in the Polanski version as it is, and even with that, I still have students write about events in their essays that were merely an interpretation of the director and not what Shakespeare wrote. (They often write about how Lady Macbeth threw herself off a balcony, when the text simply says that she died and it's later revealed that she most likely killed herself.)

With this version, I will have to pause it every ten minutes or so and point out stuff like, "So, in the text, he says this only to the audience." It would get pretty annoying pretty quickly. So, while I won't be showing this, I will definitely recommend it to any of my students who like the play enough to want to explore it further. Perhaps an extra credit review assignment?

Deadpool - Review

2016-02-28T19:03:00.002-08:00

Before I get started, I should point out that even though I'm a big fan of comic books, superheroes, and superhero movies, I'm not a huge fan of Deadpool. I don't think that I have any Deadpool comics, and I think that the only ones that I have with him are ones where he's making a guest appearance. It's not that I actively dislike the character, it's just that I never found him appealing enough to follow his book. After 30 years of reading comics, that's true of a lot of major characters though.

As a result, I might have actually skipped this one if it hadn't been for all of the good reviews. After all, I'm a fan of the Fantastic Four, but I didn't bother with the last movie since the reviews were so bad. With so many good comic book movies, why waste your time with what looks like a real stinker?

That certainly didn't seem to be the case with Wade Wilson's feature film, and the people who seemed to like it the most were the comic book fans. Also, it seemed like it was a project that the creative team really believed in and really wanted to get right. So, even as a passive fan of the character, I had to check this one out.

Overall, I really liked it, and it lived up to the hype. It was crude, violent, and hilarious, but they did a good job of creating a character that I could care about, and the love story was better than a lot of movies that are marketed as love stories. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

Ryan Reynolds - After the disappointment that was Green Lantern, I honestly wondered if the guy had what it took to carry a feature film. I think that this was the movie that proved that he can. I actually have a lot of respect for the guy, as I know that he's one of the main reasons why they got this right. He obviously respects the character and the fans, and he wanted to not just make a good movie but to make one that was true to the spirit of the comic book. (Even though I don't own any, I have read a few, so I can say that it succeeded on that level.)

The story structure - I can't think of another superhero film that does a similar thing, but this one began in median res. For those of you not well-versed in Greek epic story structure, that means that it starts in the middle of things. It doesn't waste any time showing Deadpool in his full costume right from the first scene. It then flashes back, catches up to where it started, and then it continues the narrative. I thought that was pretty smart, as most of Deadpool's appeal is in his fighting style, which includes a whole lot of talking too damn much.

The costume - I don't want to hear any more crap about how superhero costumes don't necessarily translate to the screen. If Deadpool doesn't look like he just jumped right off the page, then I don't know what's what. If they can do that, then we can see Wolverine in something a bit closer to the comics.

The wisecracks - The movie proved that you can have flippant remarks while fighting without taking away from the dramatic weight of the situation. While the two recent Spider-Man movies started heading in that direction, now there's really NO reason to not have Spidey be his smartass self in his next feature film.

The R rating - I'm totally fine with an R rated superhero film. There are a lot of adult fans out there. But like some others have commented, I'm worried that Hollywood will learn the wrong lesson and go that route with too many of them. As a father who likes to watch these films with his son (not this particular one just yet - my son's only five) I'm not too happy at the prospect of even more of these being out of his age range. Because believe me, he knows who Deadpool is, and he wants to see the movie. I'm not sure if I like the idea that the next Wolverine will be rated R (especially considering my son is named for him) and the fact that there will be an R rated version of Batman V. Superman on home video has me a bit nervous. (Superman should be accessible to little kids. I'm sorry, but any other way of looking at that is just wrong.)

Colossus - Even though it wasn't horrible what they did with him in the X-Men movies, it was nice to see a Colossus who was recognizable from the comics. I was a bit worried that he was going to be all grim and gritty as well, but he made for a nice foil for Deadpool with his earnest and heroic attitude.

The love story/ending - SPOILER ALERT - I really liked the relationship in this film, but I think that they should have taken more of a chance with the ending. I can believe that Vanessa would want him back, but they should have saved that for the next film. She was obviously hurt with him disappearing on her like that, and believing that he was dead took a toll on her. I would have found it perfectly believable if she would have told him that she loved him despite his deformity but could no longer be with him because of how hurt she was. The movie took so many chances in so many other ways that it would have been nice to see it do something a little more unconventional with the love story. That's a minor complaint, mind you.

The tone - This is probably the most incredible part of the movie. It's hard to pull off a movie that switches from comedy to drama as much as this one did, but it really pulled it off. Somehow I completely accepted the absurdity of some of the situations, but when everything took a dramatic turn, I was still invested in the characters.

I guess the only real shame is that even though this is a Marvel property, it's not part of Marvel's movie studio. It would be cool to see him interact with The Avengers, but I guess that's just not to be.

The Force Awakens - Review

2015-12-24T21:52:00.001-08:00

Let's get a couple of things out of the way. First, this will not be a proper review. I'm just going to rattle on about this film because the basic feeling I have about it is that I simply loved it.

Second? I'm not a prequel hater. I recognize their flaws, but there is still a lot that I like about them.

Third? Hell yeah The Force Awakens was leaps and bounds better than the prequels - in pretty much every respect.

Fourth? Spoilers. Total spoilers. This is for Star Wars fans who have seen the movie already. You probably don't need to be a full-on Star Wars geek, but if you don't even know the difference between an Ewok and a Wookie, you should move on.

So, here are some thoughts:

The fact that this movie even exists: Let's all be honest. When it comes to the story behind Star Wars and what George Lucas originally intended, the fact is that he changed his mind all the time. Like that line where Uncle Owen says that he's "afraid of" the notion that Luke is too much like his father? Well, it only became cool when Lucas finally decided to make Vader Luke's father, and that was while he was working on The Empire Strikes Back.

I remember when I was a kid that there supposed to be nine movies, as though that was the plan all along. I remember nearly wanting to kill myself after reading an article in the newspaper that said that there probably wouldn't be a new Star Wars for at least another five years. Oh, and that was in 1983 when Return of the Jedi came out. Insert boisterous chuckle here.

For a time there, it sure seemed like we'd never see any more Star Wars movies, but finally the prequels came along and Lucas claimed that the plan was for there to be six movies all along. Nine? That's crazy talk. It's always been six.

While I didn't believe that as an official story, I figured it was doubtful that we'd ever see a new movie anytime soon. But here we are, and despite the fact that Disney didn't seem very interested in using the treatment that Lucas gave them for a new trilogy, we've got ourselves a new one (plus a bunch of spinoff films).

I didn't expect for this to happen, but the one thing that I never thought I'd see is the old cast coming back. I sure as hell never expected Harrison Ford to return as Han Solo considering he always seemed somewhat ambivalent about the character and even said in interviews that he had no interest in returning to the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon. (But he was always eager to be Indiana Jones again.)

And yet here we are. More on the old fogeys later.

Daisy Ridley as Rey - Would it have been just as good to get a known actress for this part? I don't know. But I do know that you couldn't have gotten anybody better than her. I realize that this sounds like a billion other reviews out there, but she really managed to capture the mix of being both innocent and capable at the same time. She was instantly likable, and I was rooting for her the whole time - and yeah, I got choked up when the lightsaber flew into her hand and the familiar music played. In that moment, I loved her in the same way I love Luke, Han, Leia, Chewbacca, etc. Yeah, they're fictional, but they're a part of who I am.

John Boyega as Finn - The previews made him seem like an interesting character. A stormtrooper who deserts? They were always so anonymous and existed to be shot down by the heroes. But here's one with a conscience. Cool enough, right? Well, the trailers didn't do him justice. The thing is, he was funny but never in a way that came at the expense of the story. Even if Rey wasn't in this movie and he had to carry the whole thing, it would still be great.

Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron - Did you know that his parents were a couple of rebels who likely conceived him in an one of those Ewok houses? If not, you should read the comic books. Aside from that, he was a really cool character and my only complaint is that he wasn't in the film more. I'm hoping for a bigger part for him next time. In a way, he was our entry into the movie, and he set the tone for this new generation of films. I'd say he did aces in that role.

BB8 - Look, I don't hate Jar Jar, but this is how you do a character that's cute and for kids. Were there some cutesy moments with him? Absolutely. However, they all came right out of the story. Also, there was something likable about him and that was his sense of loyalty.

Han Solo - Like I said, I never thought I'd see this happen. Maybe Harrison Ford agreed to do it because he knew that they'd finally kill off the character, and that's what he always wanted. Maybe it was the paycheck. Maybe he genuinely liked what JJ Abrams was doing with this movie. Maybe it's all of those reasons. Who cares? He was back, and that was awesome.

What was really cool was seeing him be both the rogue and mentor archetypes rolled into one. That way we got something both familiar and new with him. Also, it was great to see the skeptic, who didn't believe in the force, confirm that it's all true. (Because like a good skeptic, objective evidence changed his mind.) And as much as I liked the bit from the trailers where he explains that the whole thing is real, the best line was his rebuke to Finn, "That's not how the Force works!"

Princess Leia - It was good to see her even though she didn't have too much to do. Still, she definitely belonged and while she basically was only a more fleshed-out Mon Mothma to a new generation, us old school fans were all no doubt happy to see that she continues to fight the good fight.

Luke Skywalker - He didn't have much to do, but he sure did a lot with it. What exactly does that look on his face indicate? He obviously doesn't just think that Rey is some random person handing him a lightsaber. (And dammit, they had better explain how it was found!) But what has him so surprised? Is that Rey is his daughter? Is it that he didn't think he'd be found?

Adam Driver as Kylo Ren - How do you create a villain who doesn't feel anticlimactic after the defeat of Darth Vader and Darth Sidious? That's how, dammit. So much was riding on creating the perfect villain, and even though he might seem like a poor man's Vader in the previews, he definitely has his own thing going for him. Now that he's killed the guy who's arguably the most popular character in the entire series, it's pretty damn easy to root against this guy. Are they going to try and redeem him by the end of this trilogy? I don't know if it's possible, and I might not even want to see him redeemed.

Snoke - Who is this guy? What's his deal? Kylo Ren isn't Sith, but maybe this guy is? Maybe he's Darth Plagueis and Sidious was lying when he said he killed him? (Or just mistaken?) There better be more to him than just "one more dark Jedi". I'm fine with not knowing too much with this movie, but I hope that they have something interesting in store for us in the next couple of movies.

The prequels live - While I didn't want this new series to be a slave to the prequels, as we don't need discussions about midichlorians, I didn't want them to be completely disregarded either. As a fan of comic books, one thing I don't like is when new writers take over a series and dump all over what previous creative teams have done. I think that this movie has just enough to satisfy fans of Episodes I - III without getting bogged down in a time period that is basically just legend for all of the new characters. The references were subtle, but we got a line at the beginning about "balance to the force" and then there was a bit of a throwaway reference to using clone troopers. It also turns out that Ewan McGregor was brought in to record a line that was used in Rey's discovery of her force connection.

Is it too much like the original? Certainly there are a lot of parallels to the original (Episode IV to you youngsters) but I felt like there was plenty of new stuff to make me care about what was going on. I do hope that they really branch into some new territory with Episode VIII though. We've all accepted Rey, Finn, Poe, and BB8 as our new cast, and we're willing to go to the unfamiliar with them.

Do I have more to say? Probably, but I need to go to bed.

Captain America versus Fox News

2015-10-25T10:57:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit late to the party here, as I picked up the latest issue of Sam Wilson: Captain America a week late, and I didn't get a chance to write about this until today. For those of you even slower on the draw than me, the latest adventure of Captain America seems to have some Fox News heads in a tizzy. Here's the video, in case you hate yourself enough to watch it:

They already start to lose me when their "expert" claims that comics are "struggling" lately. From my understanding, sales are pretty solid. Just like a lot of businesses, they have seen their highs and lows over the decades, and I know that they were predicting the end of them back in the 1990s. I certainly wouldn't think of the present as being one of the "low"periods. I also seem to recall reading that while most print publications are losing ground to electronic media, comics are one of the few that are actually up. So, yeah, that's Fox for you.

In the issue, Cap goes up against the Sons of the Serpent, a white supremacist group with ties to some classic Captain America villains with a similar agenda. The Sons are attacking people who cross the U.S. border with Mexico, and they speak in a lot of right-wing cliches:

"Also, you know how you make me press a one for English at the beginning of every call to my satellite provider? That is something I cannot abide!"

"Look who it is, y'all! Captain Socialism is here to save the day!"

"Are you really so far ahead on appeasing terrorists and apologizing for our country's greatness that you have the time to come down here and flout still more of our laws?"

Tucker Carlson describes the villain as being simply a concerned citizen who's worried about unchecked illegal immigration. Umm...no. He's a guy who attacks vulnerable people. What Carlson doesn't understand is that you can be a person who's concerned with illegal immigration and STILL view the Sons of the Serpent as being bad guys. The best villains usually speak a bit of truth. After all, isn't Poison Ivy, a Batman villain, just somebody who's concerned about the environment? Same with another Batman villain, Ra's al Ghul. He's concerned with the damage that humanity is causing.

But do you ever hear liberals coming forward and complaining that Batman is attacking liberals? Not from what I understand. That's probably because most people (including a lot of conservatives, I reckon, as these doofuses probably aren't the best representation of them) understand that it's not necessarily the motivation that makes a villain but the method. If Tucker Carlson sees a similarity between himself and the Sons of the Serpent, then that says more about him than it does the comic book.

The talking heads then go on to create a strawman, insisting that the message of the comic is that everyone in "the middle of America" is some kind of a small-minded bigot. That's hardly what's going on. Plus, they point out how the Sons cite the "crime and disease" of illegal immigrants as something that's actually a legitimate problem. Well, those are only concerns about illegals if you don't have your facts, as they are less likely to commit crimes. And call me crazy, but I'm more worried about diseases from anti-vaccination cranks who tend to be upper middle class white people.

Then you get a suggestion about how they should do a comic book on people guarding the border, supposedly keeping us safe. Do these people not realize that under a capitalistic society, such a comic book WOULD exist if anybody thought it would sell? Why should Marvel publish that? Since when is a business obligated to "tell both sides"? I realize that Fox likes to pretend that's what they do, but nobody's making them give equal time to the opposite of what they do, which would be giving actual facts.

It all gets wrapped up with the absurd notion that Captain America comics used to be free from politics, citing the front cover of the first issue where he punched out Hitler. Yeah, no politics there. I think that Trevor Noah has already covered this:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

Then it ends with the completely daft "Keep politics out of comic books; that's what I say." What kind of crap is THAT? Do you read comic books, lady who is not Gretchen Carlson? Why don't you let the people who read them decide what goes in them and what doesn't? And they can decide with their wallets.

With all this said, as a fan of the comics, the first issue of this new series was a great read. I have had my misgivings about replacing Steve Rogers with Sam Wilson as the title character, but I've changed my mind. I said that I would change my mind if Marvel had the guts to make the story mirror the sort of freak-out that happened when Obama became President, and it turns out that's exactly what they did. And sure enough, I've changed my mind. Personally, I love the fact that they're pulling no punches when it comes to addressing politics and current events.

I also didn't make the connection when this series was first solicited that it was written by Nick Spencer, who's been doing some great work lately in general. His Superior Foes of Spider-Man was a hoot and a half, and he's actually made me care enough about Ant-Man to follow the new series. They definitely picked the right guy for the book, and while I liked Rick Remender's run well enough to read it all the way through, I haven't felt this excited about Captain America since Ed Brubaker was writing the series.

It also helps that artist Daniel Acuña is doing some great work on the title. I've always enjoyed his work, but this is probably the best I've seen from him. The one thing I loved about the last run with Remender was the top-quality art from Stuart Immonen (who's now rocking it on Star Wars).

While it still feels too recent since the last time Captain America was replaced, I'm on board for this particular direction. Even though we're not living in the 1940s, it seems to me that if you're going to switch Steve Rogers with somebody else, then that person has to be different. And while I still like Sam Wilson better as The Falcon, they're doing a good job of showing how things would be different with him carrying the shield.