Welcome back to The Randomizer!
Let's be a little geeky today and discuss comic books.
Since the 1930s, they have become a great source of
entertainment for young people and old alike around the world. It will be fair
to say that it has become an international institution, giving us page after
page after page of drama, comedy, love, and action all wrapped into one. Even
now, comic books are ever-changing, even into different media formats; Films,
video games and music have helped to expand the genre to gain new fans and keep
them going for new generations to love and appreciate.
Now, what I'm going to be focusing on specifically is the
two most famous American franchises, Marvel and DC. They have dominated comic
books, especially in America, for the past seven decades, and their heroes can
be considered to be a new line of mythological gods, compared to the old Greek
Gods. We all know their names well: Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Captain
America, The X-Men, Spider-Man, they are our generation's modern day gods.
Apart from Ronnie James Dio. He's not a comic book hero, but he is still
considered God of course.
In addition, I am also going to focus on specifically is
Film and Television.....I think you can see where this will be going.
As we know today, comic book movies and television have been
a long staple through those same decades. From the first Batman serials in
World War II, to 'Superman''s release in 1978 to widespread acclaim, to the
Marvel Cinematic Universe taking centre stage against the developing 'Justice
League' film that started with Man of Steel last year, these films have
received a good amount of praise, as well as courting controversy, more so with
certain casting decisions then most these days, but other little bits as well.
I've have mentioned some of these things before in my Top Ten films I've seen in 2013, but some points will
be raised here again.
However, I'll not be going to go though are comic book films
good or not because I do like most of them. Rather I will be asking the question: Which franchise is better, Marvel or DC?
This is something I'm sure has been going around for some
time, and has bugged me for a little while. If you look on paper, both sides
have had their share of good and bad in the past. For every Avengers and The Dark Knight, you have Spider Man 3 and........urgh.....Green Lantern.
These films I will come back to overtime, and you might get a nice surprise
soon enough.
I will be including my own personal opinions in this as
well, so you'll have an impression of where I think each franchise will go, and
what shows I like overall. But I will be honest in saying this beforehand: I am
not a big comic-book fan, only following the films and TV shows. I have little
interest in reading the comic books. I know of a few storylines only from what
I have researched in the past and which ones influenced the films, so try not
to hate me too much please.
So with all that said, here then is Marvel vs DC in Film and
Television. Let the battle begin!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's go easy and start with a general overview of Marvel.
It can be fair to say that since 2000, Marvel has had the
edge over DC.....actually let's change that to effectively shot them in the
face. With the release of X-Men,
following up with the Spider-Man franchise a couple of years later, and only
increasing the pressure with the onset of the Marvel Cinematic Universe from
2008, Marvel has systematically become King of Comic Book Movies with hardly
much opposition. Almost all the movies have been very well received, albeit
with some that split fans down the middle. Regardless they have gone from
strength to strength, taking more risks as they are doing with Guardians of
the Galaxy and using all sorts of different twists and awesome actors to keep
their audiences talking.
However for some of the good that has happened, there have
been some controversial moments as with every film franchise. It would be daft
to ignore certain elements that have caused ire in not just the Marvel
Cinematic Universe, but also in X-Men, Spider-Man, etc. Some of them are major
problems, but some can be a few minor issues as well, which do make some sense
once you think about them. For now, I'll just focus on what I think is good for
Marvel films and TV shows, then follow up with what I think is bad next. The
same will be done for DC Comics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GOOD FILMS:
Where to start with the good side of things........I suppose
a good point is with the quality of films that have come out.
Needless to say, I have enjoyed a good deal of the Marvel
films, more so with the Cinematic Universe then most. Though that has probably
more to do with hearing the reactions of the X-Men movies, and seeing where the
Spider-Man films are going nowadays. With the Cinematic Universe, I had
originally made a little list for the first six films, known collectively as
'Phase 1', which went as follows:
The Avengers - 1 (duh)
Iron Man - 2
Thor - 3
The Incredible Hulk - 4
Captain America - 5
Iron Man 2 - 6
I'm sure anyone would have The Avengers and Iron Man at
the top of their lists for good reason. They are very funny films, good action
sequences, and pretty good acting all around. I think the bigger surprise on
that list is Thor. I actually really enjoyed all the humour, liked Chris
Hemsworth in the role of Thor and the twist with Loki as well, becoming a sort
of Machivellian character with his own personal gain. It was a good film
overall for me, granted that Loki's motivations can be a little non-sensical.
The second surprise is The Incredible Hulk, with Mr
Take-Over Edward Norton playing a pretty good Bruce Banner, alongside Tim Roth
playing the Abomination, Liv Tyler and William Hurt as army family Betty and
'Thunderbolt' Ross. I did think this was a good film, with some nice emotional
moments here and there with Bruce and Betty. The action scenes are probably
outdone by the emotional drama played out by the characters more, but not put
way over the top. I would like to see a sequel to this film soon, and maybe one
could've come sooner than later to my liking.
Captain America: The First Avenger was pretty good, but not
on par with the others. Acting was ok given what Chris Evans and Hugo Weaving
have against each other, but I don't really remember anything that stood out as
awesome, just something to watch so you can keep in tune with the Cinematic
Universe as a whole. Iron Man 2 I will come to in the next section.
Carrying on into Phase 2, you may remember my feelings about
Iron Man 3 already from Top Ten Films of 2013. If you don't remember it, go
over quickly beforehand. I have seen Thor: The Dark World as well (not really
making it into my list), and thought as well that it was a pretty good film as
well. Certainly it looked more pretty in a more practical state, and acting
wise it was pretty good too, especially from Christopher Eccleston as Malekith
the Accursed. But I did think the comedy went a little overboard with Darcy
having a bit more focus and a few hit-and-miss jokes (disappointed!), and after
reading up some truths about the film, it has become a little lower on my list.
Good film, but not the best sequel I've seen.
With good reactions coming for the next two Marvel films Captain
America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, along with what news
we have for Avengers: Age of Ultron, things are still going strong for Marvel
as of yet, and they aren't going to be knocked off their pearch just yet. In
fact it might be a pretty big fall if they were knocked off since they're on
top of the world.
Marvel doesn't just have films under the Nazi Regime.....oh
sorry, The Walt Disney Company. Always get those two mixed up! They also have
20th Century Fox and Sony Pictures under their spell too. Even New
Line Cinema released the Blade Trilogy under their banner before it became a
subsidiary to Warner Bros. 3 companies that Marvel has to release all sorts of
different films, and opportunities to do new projects; Well it's no wonder why
Marvel are kings at the minute isn't it?!
Kings?......hehehhahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I need drink. ANOTHER!
20th Century Fox holds The Hugh Jackman Show,
more commonly known as the X-Men, which really brought in a new influx of Comic
Book Movies since the days of Batman and Superman, and allowed Marvel to gain a
hand against DC. The first two movies were released to critical and box office
praise from film-goers alike. Directed by Bryan Singer, the tone of both films
were quite dark, brooding and well-directed action, and the over-riding theme
of prejudice becoming the main focus. It's been a while since I have since both
films, but I remember them being really great pieces of work. Hugh Jackman was
good as Wolverine, along with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan as Professor
Charles Xavier and Magneto respectively and all the others making good use of
the characters they work with.
But with all due respect, those two films were the only real
films I liked from the X-Men series so far. I have not seen X-Men Origins:
Wolverine yet, and from what I've heard it's not a very good and well-thought
out film. But perhaps I should do that soon!
The other two......well for the minute I'm going to say
X-Men: First Class felt different. It was ok, with some good moments here and
there, but it was a complete contrast to the first X-Men films, more colourful and
historical then most. It's not necessarily bad per se, but it did not appeal to
me so much. Some little bits did niggle me a bit, like why Magneto and
Sebastian Shaw did not speak to each other in German during their final battle
scene, since they were German to start with. The humour as well is different,
which I think was because Matthew Vaughan who made Kick-Ass beforehand. That
too is not bad, but against the tone of the first two X-Men films, it was
strange. What didn't help X-Men First Class, in my mind at the time,
was the conflicting idea of whether it was a reboot of the franchise or a
prequel. It just utterly confused me what the intentions were. But reading an
article about the film from Screenrant.com, Vaughan said that it was in fact a
prequel to the X-Men Trilogy. It was a few years since it was written, so I
wasn't totally up to date with the film's original purpose.
Sony Pictures on the other hand have the rights to the
Spider-Man franchise, stretching back over a decade ago to 2002, first with the
trilogy starring Toby Maguire in the role of Peter Parker, but then rebooted
two years ago with Andrew Garfield in the role. I will be honest and say I
never saw the first two Spider-Man films in the cinema, only by other means of
DVDs and in a Greek bar on holiday. When I was younger, I did enjoy them immensely,
having a vested interest in the narrative, the characters (especially Doc.
Octopus), and the exploration of having awesome powers and using them as a
means to do good in the world.
To probably your surprise, I haven't really watched
Spider-Man 3 all the way through, just the beginning and the ending bits. I
can't really have a big opinion on it for the time being, but I will say from
what I've seen it's ok so far. I probably should put that on my list of films I
need to watch all the way through too! (which begs the question, what am I
doing with my life?)
But now I am an old and wiser soul (pfft not really :P), and
re-watched Spider-Man last year so I could come to my own idea of who was the
better Spider-Man. To be honest, Spider-Man was ok. Just ok mind. Toby Maguire
is pretty good in the role, but I don't think he completely owns the role as
Peter Parker. Something about him just threw me off. The CGI in the film can be
pretty off-putting too, especially with the Green Goblin sometimes being
blantanly bad. Speaking of the Green Goblin, Willem Defoe is hysterical as
Norman Osborn, but again it now makes me feel kinda meh. Maybe it's something I
can't really relate to anymore because I've grown up, and think it now an ok
film with some silly bits.
On the other hand, The Amazing Spider-Man.......was kind of
the same. Andrew Garfield was also good as Peter, but some bits were again a
little off-putting, like the skateboarding stuff. It made for some good stunts,
but....why is he a skateboarder, just to be different? Isn't that kinda forced?
He's already a computer guy, he doesn't need the skateboarding stuff to be more
introverted right? Despite that, the relationships he had with Uncle Ben and
Aunt May felt more realistic, more dramatic, showing that Peter isn't the
saintly kid, he can be a real dick some times. Garfield does play it a little
better.
My favourite part of that film was actually Emma Stone playing
Gwen Stacy. I just enjoyed her characterisation in the entire film. She brought
a sort of spunkiness and intelligence to the role and sounded just right most
of the way through, hitting everyone of her marks. Actually I take it back,
both Stone and Sally Field were great. Field playing Aunt May felt more
emotional and caring about what the hell is her nephew doing around at night
and feeling lonely after her husband is shot. You really see the emotions pour
out of her and sympathise completely with her fears. In this case, the male
actors can suck it :P.
Initial opinions on The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I think it
will be a little better then the first film. The action bits look impressive,
the acting good and I wonder what will happen to Gwen Stacy in the end. What do
I mean by that? Well......there have been certain elements of one of her
costume that matches a certain costume from the comic books. That's all I'm
going to say, no spoilers at all.
Safe to say the future is still bright for Marvel for the moment.
As long as they keep releasing good quality films that people will enjoy in the
heat of the moment, they are simply going to stay on top.
With that said......
----------------------------------------------------
THE BAD FILMS:
Despite the reputation it has now around the world, they
have had really bad hits in the past and present. Indeed, since the 80s to late
90s films based on Marvel were critical failures, such as Howard the Duck
(produced by George Lucas), The Punisher (1989 film), Captain America (1990
film) and the unreleased Fantastic Four film (which as far as I know is
actually viewable on Youtube). Things looked up with the release of more gritty
and dramatic films like Blade and X-Men to better praise. Then in the middle
2000s simply put, quality declined.
Fantastic Four was released and received a critical
drubbing, but good box office receipts were enough to warrant a sequel two
years later, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. That film received
not-so much better reviews, and raked in less-money then the first. Again, I've
only seen a bit of the first one and the second, so my opinion is limited. At
the time of viewing from ages ago, the first one seemed ok but strange,
probably due to the fact it was a scene where they're on the bridge and Jessica
Alba was busy getting undressed to use her invisibility powers. The second
film....it felt ok too. But the overall villain, Galactus was a cloud. Even I
knew that he was a big fucking giant from the comics. It was a bizarre choice
even today, and I still don't get why he needed to be changed into a cloud,
even if the purple/blue costume looked out of place and could have been changed
anyway.
But I did see X-Men: The Last Stand.
After posting this picture, my face melted and my eyes fell
out of my sockets into a puddle of blood on the floor.
Oooooh, I HATED this film. This is an abomination. The plot
focuses on the telepath Jean Grey becoming a more powerful person known as 'The
Phoenix', and scientists have discovered a way to cure mutants of their powers,
created from a mutant boy called Jimmy, whose powers can cancel out any mutant
ability. Well you can see who that will piss off? Justin Bieber! He is a mutant
anyway. No it's Ian McKellan of course and he reforms a new version of his
Brotherhood of Mutants, even bringing Jean to his side after she kills
Professor X. The X-Men though disheartened, fight the enlarged Brotherhood at
the end and send them into retreat, with Wolverine killing Jean when she goes
mad and destroys everything in sight.
Let me make a list of things as to why this film really
annoys me:
·
Magneto dumps Mystique. This I thought was
complete and utter crap. These two have a good relationship with each other in
the first two films, yet he just abandons her after she shot with the cure.
That is inexcusable and an insult on Magneto's character
·
Angel. Angel is one of the most important characters
in the comic book world, being one of the first members of the X-Men. In the
movie, he is absolutely pointless. He runs off from home, joins the X-Men, and
saves his dad at the end. That is it. Urgh!
I think you can see where I'm coming from with those points.
It's a film that really does grind my gears.
The other film I specifically want to talk about is Iron Man
2, where Tony Stark has to contend with a revenge plot from Ivan Vanko aka
Whiplash because Vanko's father was deported to the old USSR for trying to make
a profit of creating an arc reactor. Oh and he's dying too, making him do silly
things like putting Pepper Potts up to be CEO of the company.....which
motivation I missed completely, or maybe it wasn't made all too clear. And the
ending....oh the ending. Vanko makes himself a suit to beat both Iron Man and
the newly created War Machine, and fails. How original.
This was just a silly movie. Ivan Vanko was a pretty bad
villain, getting completely owned by Iron Man twice, and ripping off the first
Iron Man with his own suit. He even tries to blow the two heroes up....and
fails to do that completely. He was a poorly written character that needed a
lot of work on. I've read up that Mickey Rourke has stated his disappointment,
saying that the higher ups wanted just the one dimensional bad guy and not
allowing expansion to work on the character. I can really understand where he
is coming from, villains need to be as just as complex and motivated as the
hero. If not, they just feel flat.
I think the other problem is the film is not very consistent
in terms of narrative and clarity. I don't remember Tony promoting Pepper to
CEO because he was dying specifically, or at least shown a scene where it was
made clear. Also it wasn't very funny to me, because I only laughed twice or
thrice while in the cinema, at the beginning and the end of the film. Iron Man
2 is such a waste of a film, unable to really expand more into the Marvel
Universe and whatnot.
The last two films I will give a quick mention to is the
Ghost Rider double. I have heard that both films aren't very good, the first
one being over-the-top and cheesy, and the second Spirit of Vengeance is just
bad too. After watching one review about the first film, and seeing a clip of
the first, I'm not sure I'd be missing much if I didn't watch it. But hey, I
might be bored and need a good laugh at some point! Did that with I
Frankenstein, and I turned out fine.
It's probably a good thing that the few bad films have come
in-between the better quality films, and not hurting anyone of the franchises
too much, unless where X-Men and Spider-Man are concerned where everything led
into different directions. I apologise for not mentioning every bad film on
here, but I don't really want to bore you all too much. There's plenty more I
need to talk about!
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE TV SHOWS:
When I first got into Marvel, it was partly thanks to the
various animated series that was available on Fox Kids for a good time. By
various I mean a good load. I remember watching Spider-Man, The Incredible
Hulk, X-Men, The Marvel Action Hour (consisting a double bill of Iron Man and
Fantastic Four) and Silver Surfer (....anyone actually remember this show?). So
much was there to wet the appetite.
Welcome
to Marvel's Action Hour. You must be 18 or over to watch these shows
back-to-back ;)
To be honest, I don't really remember them so well with
complete fondness. All the series had some sort of mixed bags to like and
dislike at the same time, because I wasn't sure of the designs the different
animations had, which at times were either quite flashy, too bright or just
didn't leave that much of an impression on me. I think it's more of the latter,
even though I do remember some bits from the show.
The few things did really did stand out for me was actually
the very long storylines, like the double Phoenix Sagas in X-Men, the Six
Forgotten Warriors in Spider-Man, the first few episodes of the Silver Surfer, seeing
Tony Stark's father come back in Iron Man, and actually seeing a big cross-over
between all of these series in Spider-Man was ridiculously fun, the list could
go on. But it won't so there. What I do fondly remember most of all is the
individual intro videos, except for the Fantastic Four ones, which I tried to
repress successfully for good reason. They were sooo annoyingly addictive. My
all-time favourite intro is probably the Iron Man Season 2 intro. It has a rock
guitar focus and solo. Nuff said (no Stan Lee pun intended). It was a good way
to spend a weekend instead of doing homework. I have no regrets!......much.
But with the Marvel Cinematic Universe becoming dominate for
four years came an idea for a TV show based around the activities of
S.H.I.E.L.D., appropriately titled Agents of SHIELD, created by Avengers director Joss Weldon. It brings a somehow brought back to life Agent
Phil Son of Coul leading a small team to investigate different cases that
threaten the world, and finding out for himself how he was brought back to life
in the first place.
The show itself is actually pretty good, considering its
overall setting in the big scheme of things with references back to the films
with the use of the Extremis technology along with the Chitauri technology ,
seeing a fugitive from Asgard etc. It gives a more wider scope at how smaller
humans can make a difference against the main members of the Avengers. Some of
the characters other then Coulson are a little interesting, like how Skye can
take matters into her own hands and talk back when necessary, how Melinda May
(played by Mulan!) has her nickname 'the Cavalry', and the relationship between
Fitz and Simmons (who obviously love each other, but are too piss-scared to say
it).
I don't have so many gripes with the show at all, because
there are some bits that really do fascinate me, about how where everything is
going. But I do wonder if some of the characters come across as a bit bland and
not very interesting as people. They might come across as simple sterotypes to
put across exposition and defeat the bad guys at every turn. Well, almost every
turn. I suppose nothing really feels developed, that we're just simply waiting
until the next episode for some explanation for one character or the
other. Also I'm not entirely sure that
the three-month long break we had in the UK helped much, since probably half
the episodes have already been broadcast in America and we can simply spoil it
for ourselves willy-nilly. I don't know, I just can't put my finger on what my
issue is. Hmmm more tea is needed I reckon.
Interestingly Marvel Television announced some time ago that
Netflix had picked up four live-action series to begin in 2015, focusing on the
heroes living in Hell's Kitchen, starting with Daredevil, to culminate into a
mini-series called The Defenders. Sounds like a Marvel TV universe so to
speak doesn't it? But it shows how much risks Marvel and Disney are willing to
take with going into new and different directions, perhaps more so where
Daredevil is concerned, because they can bring in more comic book heroes to
appeal to Marvel and television fans in general. They are really pushing the boundaries of the
comic book world into a new medium the likes of which has never been seen
before.
Perhaps that's why Marvel has made such a big impact in the
world as it has done so far. The producers of Marvel and Disney have been
willing to take quite big risks in bringing these pictures to life, and succeed
for the most part in bringing in big audiences. Yes, every franchise has its
cock-ups, but Marvel must feel as if they have not been so repetitive in making
those kind of mistakes over and over again. It's hard not to fault them for
their probable long-term plans in thinking what films are they going to do
next. They seem to know what they are doing, where they want to go for each
film and how they are going to do it.
For the time being, Marvel is in control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we come to DC. Ohh, where do we start with the older of
the two? Time hasn't always been kind to DC in the world, especially where film
is concerned and TV to an extent.
Oh hai
To everyone's knowledge, there have been only TWO
superheroes that have received the biggest receptions around the world, Bella
Swan and Edward Cullen. Oh wait, they're shit I remember! Of course it's
Superman and Batman, and DC Entertainment are only starting to get their feet
off the ground with production leading forward inevitably to the Justice League
film, arguably SO far behind what Marvel is doing. Their path will not be easy,
considering not just the release of Green Lantern to poor reception (for good
reason), but with the somewhat controversial events surrounding Man of Steel
(film-wise) and its still-in-production sequel Superman vs Batman.
It might be fair to say DC are doing the opposite of Marvel,
trying to bring the main members of the Justice League slowly film after film
instead of giving them separate stories to introduce them and the DC Universe
over-time. Least that's to my assumption. It does make things a little
different on paper, but whether it will work once the film is finished and
released is another matter. However with what success in film they have had,
they have had just as much success with TV more so then Marvel have with their
DC Animated Universe, as well as other shows like Teen Titans, Young Justice
and the ongoing live-action series, Arrow.
Let's go into detail to see how much DC does hold up against
Marvel, if it does at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GOOD:
Despite what I think at the moment to DC's intentions at the
minute, I do think that there is some good from what has been released so far.
Well from what I have watched anyway in film. Like I said, Superman and Batman
are the main go-to superheroes for DC, the ones that are so popular to have
their own recognisable films, loved by many people around the world. Well,
loved as much with their best foot forward and worse foot mangled by their own
swords.
Superman was the first superhero to have his own big
cinematic opus in 1978, released to critical praise and still maintains a good
following (time-travelling notwithstanding I think). Superman II received just
as much, if not higher, acclaim. Metacritic has a rating of 99. Not even joking.
Despite the well-known production complications involving original director
Richard Donner and the brought in Richard Lester, people still have great
praise to give this film. The third and forth films however weren't so well
received. Superman III's greater emphasis on comedy, with the addition of
Richard Pryor in the mix, did not sit so well with fans so I've heard, seen as
a poor mess of a threequel. The forth however I have seen, and is hilariously
bad. Physics are sent away because story is more important, dialogue is silly,
the blue-screen effects are so obvious, nothing really makes any sense in this
film at all. It is a poor attempt at talking about nuclear weapons which
apparently was still a threat in the 80s, right? In 2006 however, the latter
two films were ignored in favour of Bryan Singer's big mistake, Superman
Returns. Despite some positive reviews, it was seen as a failure at the box
office and a potential sequel scrapped. Oh well.
Brandon sad......
Only seven years later, Superman came back to the big screen
under the moniker Man of Steel, and setting the course for an eventual Justice
League movie. Yeah, I haven't seen this movie properly either (such a big
Superman fan aren't I?). I've only heard what happens from accidental spoiling
and watching the final battle between him and General Zod. But from what I have
seen, it does look a real nice film to get started with. Speaking of which, it
does look like it has a similar tone to another film series, which goes all the
way back to 1989.
The Batman films I have seen properly, so I can bitch about
them all I want! Yay!
I
make everyone my bitch, because I'm Batman. Now where's the one called 'Bieber'?
The Tim Burton Double were pretty good films. The first
Batman was well-acted, broodingly atmospheric and quite cartoony without being
so distracting. Jack Nicholson is good as the Joker, though it might be a
little distracting because it is Jack Nicholson. Michael Keaton as Batman was
good too, showing how playfully ignorant he can be, but also a playfully
vicious side when he puts the cape and cowl on. I will admit there are a lot of
things that I don't really find funny, like the hand with the dead flowers
popping out as Kim Basinger opens up a parcel. That just goes over my head. Whatever
flaws it has, it's still a good movie. Batman Returns was actually the first
film I saw of the Burton films, seeing how far dark Burton could go with the
drama that the Penguin brought with it. To be honest, that tone of the film
didn't really bother me at all. You could argue that that's what Batman is
supposed to be: He is a dark superhero, and bad stuff does need to happen in
dark storylines. It's something to reflect upon. With that said, it is still a
good film. The action scenes are pretty good, it's cartoony in a nice way,
though probably a little bit confusing.
The second double and most infamous is the Joel Schumacher
films. I still remember Batman Forever quite fondly from days of night-time
babysitters. It was entertaining, very bright, manically energetic, dramatic
with the appearance of Dick Grayson and very memorable. But that is really my
memories as a kid watching it, not as who I am now. Val Kilmer was pretty good
too, having a nice brooding voice as Batman while keeping a kind of coolness as
Bruce Wayne. Chris O'Donnell as Dick Grayson/Batman's target poster was ok too,
bringing a nice bit of angst to the part and slight cockiness too (though I
don't know if that's warranted or not considering he lost his parents). Then
things took a turn for the worst for many people as Batman and Robin came on
the scene. Now like Batman Forever, it's been a long time since I've seen this
film and I have heard how much people really HATE this film. But remembering
from the time I watched it, I thought it was ok. Please don't hate the kid in
me. It wasn't as good as Batman Forever, but was still pretty decent to keep my
attention. George Clooney was ok as Batman, though I don't think his voice ever
changes at all, just your standard Clooney drawl. Chris O'Donnell seemed to be
a little more bitchy for some reason and Alicia Silverstone was ok as
Batgirl......actually you know what, I think I do need to re-watch Batman and
Robin, just to see what I could make of it now, what it's really like.
I've only noticed this as I'm writing, but have you noticed
a pattern between the two films? Burton's films get more darker and broody,
while Schumacher's goes more campier. Maybe it shows to producers at any rate
that the two extremes are just bad ideas. Needless to say after Batman and
Robin died a very slow death at the box office, plans for a Batman Triumphant
film were scrapped in haste, and the Dark Knight would lay low from cinematic
screens for eight years. Until.......
God
rang up and said you needed a series saved?
The new cinematic god Christopher Nolan gave us the now
well-renowned realism grounded Batman Trilogy. These films are some of the best
in the comic book genre I have had the pleasure of seeing on-screen, and made
Nolan one of my favourite directors for mainstream stuff, and set off the idea
for reboots for a good number of films. But the first reboot of Batman was the
first to be done right in my mind. Batman Begins shows how Bruce Wayne came to
become the Dark Knight himself, getting involved in a plot to take Gotham off
the map tearing itself apart, literally, through fear. Christian Bale as Batman
was really good, turning Bruce Wayne into a sort-of over-the-top money spender
and playing Batman well as a good action hero (Quick note: I liked the voice he
did. Move along). Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes was ok too. She did well to come
across as someone who tried their hardest to do the right thing, be freaked out
and have a caring attitude at times of need. Also the twist was actually really
good, considering the man who plays the villain isn't really known for playing
villains.
If Batman Begins was the seed of rebooting the franchise,
then its sequel The Dark Knight was the crowning jewel, especially with Heath
Ledger playing The Joker in a fantastic role. It raised the stakes a little
higher, brought in some more impeccable acting from Aaron Eckhart, Maggie
Gyllenhall, Morgan Freeman etc, and really nice action scenes to boot.
Essentially it became a high point of how comic book sequels ought to be done.
The final part The Dark Knight Rises was still a good film, but as I've
mentioned before, there are a good number of flaws that needed to be held up. I
still think that despite the films intentions, it could've been a hell of a lot
better. That said, it is still a very good piece of work, nicely acted and Bane's
voice can be heard dammit!
Sadly for the DC side of things, that is as far as I can go
talking about good DC films. That must be a worrying thought for DC anyway,
because they have no other big superheroes to fall back on in anyway shape or
form. From what I have seen, DC can be perfectly capable of making good comic
book movies. The difficulty is they just don't half the time with all the other
heroes they have put on-screen, some of which aren't even part of the DC
universe. With the onset of bringing the Justice League onto the screen, they
are making some interesting choices like bringing Ben Affleck on to take the
role of Batman and bringing Wonder Woman onto the scene as well, with Gal Gabot
in role. So they are making some risks with bringing heroes together one after
the other. Whether the choices pay off in the end is another matter. Some other
heroes in the DC universe they have tried however just don't work......
----------------------------------------------------
THE BAD:
Oh dear me, there are a few bad ones here. Unfortunately
I've only seen the one film, but by my guess I think I might hate the others in
that respect too.
In 1997 saw the release of Steel with Shaquille O'Neal in
the lead role. In 1997 saw the release of Steel with Shaquille O'Neal in the
lead role. Just wrote it down twice to make sure you see I am not bluffing with
a chocolate muffin. O'Neal stars as John Henry Irons, who resigns from the army
because of his friend 'Sparks' being injured in one of his weapons experiments.
Finding out that his old partner Burke is using his weaponry for crime, he
makes an exoskeleton rubber suit and takes to the streets as Steel to fight
this menace. Unfortunately, the only menace he could not fight back against was
the box-office, because this film flopped badly. The only probable good thing
to come out of Steel is the actress playing Sparks, Annabeth Gish, getting good
reviews herself.
Interesting enough in the original comics, the character was
actually inspired to help fight crime after being saved by Superman, and
challenged to do something with his life. Longing to atone for the deaths his
weapons had caused, he built a suit of exoskeleton armour and assumed the name
Steel. I bring this up because I think it's interesting to show how Superman
can be a good influence in film as oppose to just creating an original
back-story, and it could tie in with the Superman movies. But then again that
franchise had died badly, so it didn't need to be repeatedly machine-gunned
more into the ground.
Thirteen years later, with Nolan's Batman trilogy one film
away from completion you'd think DC would capitalise on making another
franchise to equal Batman. In comes Jonah Hex in 2010, with Josh Brolin in the
lead role. The story is a revenge tale during the American Civil War, as Hex is
forced to kill his commanding officer's son and best friend, Jeb Turnbull for
refusing to burn down a hospital. This incurs Quentin Turnbull's wrath and with
your resident psychopath in tow from the high street, kills Hex's wife and
child in a fire and brands his initials on Hex. Hex seeks revenge and goes
after Turnbull. Upon release Jonah Hex was universally panned and only brought
in an under a fifth of its budget.
Like with Steel, Hex's backstory is changed from the
original comics. He became a bounty hunter upon suggestion by someone when he
killed an outlaw who echoed sentiments of his own alcoholic father and abused
mother. He himself is killed by another outlaw of some variety, and returned
from the dead to receive supernatural powers. Maybe this might have made a
better storyline, but honestly, I don't find Jonah Hex that interesting as a
person. He just seems a cowboy with a big bulging eye from what I've seen. The
film make-up as well from what I've seen leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe in
future I'll watch it if I'm so bored out of my mind, or as a way to show people
how not to make comic book movies.
A
year later came the release of a film I did hate with a passion for a time, and
what I thought would be horrible from the trailer: Green Lantern.
Upon loading this poster, my face melted again. I should
stop watching bad movies.
The plot is as follows:
Hal Jordan is a pilot who is fired after screwing up a
training session, and goes to visit his nephew for his birthday. However he is
caught in a green energy field and brought to a crashed spaceship where the
alien Abin Sur gives him a magic green ring, which helps him defeat a few
people on Earth before taking him to the planet Oa, where he discovers the
Green Lantern Corp, and an enemy as old as the crop itself, Parallax....and
everything goes down hill from there.
After watching this....whatever this was intended to be, I
was fraught with the logic because a lot of things don't make sense at all.
Here are a few main points that mainly bugged me:
·
Parallax's escape. So wasn't he contained simply
by the power of will? Surely willpower is strong enough to stop a evil space
octopus (no questions, Parallax is pretty much a evil space octopus) because no
one really wants him loose. I know this is nit-picking, but it is a good amount
of nit-picking. Without it, the plot can't forward. In fact, it shouldn't
really move forward at all. Meh.
This has given me an idea that this particular movie has
made a crime of doing: Putting comic book references in the film to make it
entirely pointless. Yes I know the comic book had that stuff in, but that does
NOT give one an excuse to not bother working them in properly into the film's
narrative. To me it is just lazy writing, inexcusable. You shouldn't always put
comic book stuff so the fans can be happy, and expect the film to work from
that, you need to have a lot of consistency and work them into the film to show
how these elements of characters, logic etc work instead of just throwing them
in willy-nilly, and hope the fans will be happy regardless. That should not be
how comic book films work at all!
ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!..............................nice
to get some anger out of the way. Didn't think Green Lantern could piss me off
so much.
Daenarys
felt the same when Joffrey said he enjoyed Green Lantern and X-Men the Last
Stand.
So there pretty much covers DC films for the moment. For
some of the good that does come with DC, the bad stuff really seems to drag it
down into an endless pit. Superman and Batman are the only ones relied on to
bring audiences in to see DC movies, but it doesn't need to be this way. If
there can be some good writers, good directors, good actors to bring more DC
heroes to the big screen, DC will stand a chance against Marvel in film. It can
be done, but I just hope it can be done soon.
But for all the grief I give on film, TV is another story
all together.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TV SHOWS:
As I've mentioned, Marvel are starting to plan a foothold on
TV along with future instalments for cinema. DC have already have that in the
bag, in live-action and animated formats, more so with the animated side then
most.
In the 70s and 80s, there was a period of
domination with the Super Friends franchise. Based on the Justice League, it
featured a main core of the popular characters from DC comics including: Wonder
Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkgirl and many more featured in
the thirteen year run it had on air, as they faced off against the Legion of
Doom, Animal and Hawk......oh sorry, not WWE Legion of Doom, DC Legion of Doom,
headed by Lex Luthor. Easily confused obviously.
We will destroyed the Justice League with our patented
Marvel waving techniques!
I don't know enough about these shows as you can see. But
growing up in the 90s and 00s, I had the opportunity to watch the DC Animated
Universe. Created by Bruce Timm and Paul Dini, the various animated series
consisted of mature storylines, memorable characters and pretty good action
sequences, keeping me and many other people enthralled for over ten years.
Interestingly enough there were even a few spin-off movies, one of which
getting a theatrical release. I admit to only watching a few of the series in
all, but I still have some vivid memories from the episodes on display,
especially the intro music that came with the territory.
One episode I remember most vividly from the Batman animated
series was The Laughing Fish, where The Joker creates a toxin that affects
fish, and Batman appropriately investigates. I remember it being pretty good,
some scenes really standing out for me, especially where "Batman" is
attacked by a cat, and turns out to be someone else in place of him. Unfortunately,
I don't remember because I had primary school annoyingly, so had to leave under
educational intent, or whatever educational intent there was.....grr.
One other series that had me interested was Justice League,
an off-shoot of Super-Friends (except more mature I think). I remember watching
the first three episodes, Secret Origins, when Earth is threatened by an alien
invasion. Superman has been having some odd nightmares, but figures out they
have been coming from the alien J'onn J'onzz and rescues him with Batman's
help. J'onzz then telepathically brings more heroes to help fight the invasion:
Wonder Woman, John Stewart as Green Lantern (more respect for him then Hal
Jordan), Hawkgirl, and The Flash. I do remember this being so pretty fucking
awesome, as the new team fought in pretty good action, nicely done characters
and pretty interesting enemies to fight against. This show interested me a hell
of a lot, seeing the various members of the Justice League playing off against
each other and how the stories keep some consistency as well as a good degree
of maturity. It was a show I was happy enough to give my undivided attention
to.
That is until the attention came to another favourite
TV show, Teen Titans.
I loved this show, loved it, loved it, loved it. The theme
song was annoyingly addictive, the characters were awesome, the episodes went
from funny comedic episodes to serious mature ones seamlessly, it was just something
I completely adored and was always keen to watch when young at heart. The show
focused on five core members: Robin (Dick Grayson though it's not actually
specified), Cyborg, Starfire, Beast Boy and my overall favourite character
Raven, following their different adventures and even including two major comic
book storylines from the Teen Titans comics themselves. Watching them recently,
I still got a sense of enjoyment out of them. They were still funny (though
some of the jokes are bit contrived for plot convenience), the mature stuff
held up well (except for one episode in particular involving racism), the
animation really sweet and the voice acting can be really good at times, but
the tone can be a little annoying. It didn't stop me from enjoying the series
over ten years after I watched it. Last year, the series was rebooted somewhat
into a more surreal comedic series called Teen Titans Go!, which I did found very
strange but still really funny and good fun to watch. I'd recommend both to
watch, so.....Simon says bitches. :).
In terms of live-action series, Marvel may be trying to get
a foothold, but DC have a lot going for it since the 1950s. The first
live-action show at that time was The Adventures of Superman (isn't that just
the way?), starring George Reeves as the alien hero. A decade later, the Adam
West show brought Batman to popular heights with its campy tone and uses of the
words Pow!, Sock! And Zooo Motherfucker! Wonder Woman was the next popular
series in the 70s, with that repetitive theme song and I think slight amount of
cheesiness as well, though I have only seen clips of it, not a full episode.
One season I have kept with and watched rather
religiously is Arrow.
Following the Green Arrow comic book series, Arrow is about
the inner city adventures of Oliver Queen, who fights crime in Starling City,
originally setting his father's wrongs to rights in the first series, then pledging
to stop all criminals without attempting to kill them in season two. What I love
about this series is the various twists and turns that happened throughout,
seeing how the characters have developed into their roles, and despite the
undisputable that Queen is pretty much a near rip-off of Batman, he is an
interesting character all round, planning for all sorts of different
situations, like when he is actually arrested for being the Arrow but figuring out
a plan for that situation. If you fancy giving it a go, do. It is a clever series,
full of interesting stuff and really brings the mythos of the DC universe to
home.
I now have read about the development of new
shows like The Flash, which was used in Arrow as a kind of back-door pilot to
show off the origin for Barry Allen, and a series following the early career of
Commissioner Gordon and a young Bruce Wayne called Gotham, as he investigates
the murder of Wayne's parents and sees the origins of such famous Batman villains
such as Penguin, Catwoman, Two-Face etc. Both series do feel as if they have a
lot of promise, more so with Gotham I think, and with the onset of Marvel
series to come, I think they should deliver greatness.
So looking back on this section, I do enjoy the DC stuff on
TV in my personal opinion, just as much with what Marvel has to offer. Compared
to the movies, the TV shows can be so much better to take in and enjoy. I have
wonder if DC characters can work in TV better because there's so much more to
work with. It is a big universe like Marvel and with the multitude of
characters that exist, it can be possible to do, probably more so with the
lesser known heroes to bring them to the forefront. So yes, DC definitely has
more of a home on TV then it does for the moment at the cinema.
------------------------------------------------------------------
TO SUM UP:
Looking back on what I have discovered and from my own
personal experience, I do think it is a split landside for either side, and it
will come as no surprise to some people. Marvel has the advantage in film due
to its many advantages in having THREE film companies to work with, a long term
planning strategy, and great actors to fall back against. With the five TV series
currently in production, it is an obvious prospect that Marvel will dominate
for many years to come. At the present moment for DC, it's hard to see them
bringing anything that will bring comic books on mass to their side. That
doesn't mean that they're not capable of doing really, because they can. But
the bad films released really bring down DC quite a notch compared to what Marvel
has managed to bring out.
The main problem for DC is how they handle the creation of
their heroes. Not like with Superman and Batman, but with Green Lantern and Jonah
Hex. From my experience with Green Lantern, he was created terribly on film,
and deserved way better planning out to his character and story. I don't know
who else has an interest in Jonah Hex, but he isn't a superhero I have that
much interest in. That is only my opinion however.
As a bit of fun for myself and my friend, I did a plan-out
of a Teen Titan film series. There is a core mythology all around the
characters who are part of the group, and many themes, worlds and drama that
can be properly explored if written right. From what I have seen, there is a
pretty sizable fan base for Teen Titans and this should be given a good deal of
thought, because there are great numbers of superheroes that exist in the DC
Universe, but they have not the great exposure that Superman and Batman happen
to have. That on itself is surely a sad thing on film. With the point on relying
on Superman and Batman most of the time as well, DC will be seen a two-man
horse.
On TV however, DC does have some great shows of their own,
especially with Arrow at the minute, and perhaps Gotham and The Flash will deliver
too before long. But they need to up their game if Marvel's five shows are
successful in their own right, and not be on the back foot like they have done
in film. But I think their quality doesn't need to change at all if the time
comes, and it will, they need to have studios (TV AND Film) on their side to be
able to continue having some relevance, because if they are eclipsed then the
comic books will be their only source of entertainment. From what I have
learned from them, they are not as interesting.
In the end then, DC is capable of so much
entertainment. But with Marvel coming up and up, it's hard to see any kind of
fight-back at all.
But the Battle continues....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it for the Randomizer this week. I hope you enjoyed
my thoughts and rants, and will follow me next month wherever I go. Good day to
you all!
Randomizer out.
