Let's Blow-Up the Enterprise, Star Trek Beyond

When J.J. Abrams took over the Star Trek Movie franchise, he did one really smart thing: he reset the Star Trek Universe.  Some fans hated it, but in one fell swoop, Abrams got rid of the weight of the Star Trek cannon which had become a cumbersome beast.  It was, I thought, brilliant.  He then made a blunder or two.  He blew up Vulcan which was a change that was just too much and kind of unnecessary. He also tinkered with the nature of the relationship of crew members, most notably giving Uhura and Spock a love relationship that hadn't been there before. He also gave us some new and really good back story as to who some of these characters were and something of an interesting villain in the character of Nero.  

Flash forward, Abrams made a great movie but again he made the blunder of trying to remake one of the most popular storylines in Star Trek.  Yes, the timeline had been reset, but one does not change the very nature of Khan and "Space Seed" and Wrath of Khan and completely reset it. All he actually had to do was just not name the character, played brilliantly by Benedict Cumberbatch, Khan and not steal lines from Wrath.  True, they were nods to The Original Series (TOS). 

Don't get me wrong, I loved these first two movies. They were creative and more action/adventure oriented for a new generation of Trekkers. There were some things, I just wish had been done differently, and I wanted new adventures, not retellings of TOS episodes. I have loved this series since it first appeared in 1966. Yes, I am that old a Trekker.  With Star Trek Beyond, we finally get one of those new adventures. While some of the unnecessary character tinkerings are still there, Beyond takes us to a new world where the Enterprise is in its third year of its five-year mission, and Kirk (Chris Pine) is starting to wonder what his place is in the Federation.  Meanwhile, Spock (Zachary Quinto) struggles with his own issues as we are none too subtly reminded that Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy), one of the icons of TOS, has passed away.  

The movie is original and well balanced with action and humor, something that has always been a mark of the Star Trek franchise. Star Trek Beyond has both that old familiar feel and new creativity that will make the movie work for both old and new fans. The trope of blowing up the Enterprise is used well.  Ever since, Star Trek III, it seems like every few movies, it comes time to blow up Enterprise so there can be a new one. It's like destroying the Astin-Martin in Bond movies.  I hope we get to keep the next Enterprise for a bit. 

Star Trek Beyond has a new director.  J.J. Abrams has moved on to direct Star Wars, so Justin Lin, best known for Fast and Furious movies, has taken over "helm" duties. Gone are the lens flares that I personally found pretty annoying in Abrams cinematography.  The movie also was re-written when the first script was found to be unacceptable.  The new script was created by Simon Pegg and Doug Jung which explains the inclusion of a much stronger humor element. The new TOS cast has returned, and we have an interesting new villain and possibly a new character to add to the crew. I must admit, it was at times, given his recent death, difficult to watch Anton Yelchin.

Kirk and company are drawn into a trap by the insane Krall (Idris Elba) who wants a weapon to destroy the Federation.  We also meet Jaylah, (Sofia Boutella) who is both natural warrior and engineer. Jaylah is a fun and interesting character, and it's clear that she could return in the next movie. If there was any major issue I had with the movie it was Krall's make-up but mostly delivery which reminded me a bit too much of Jerry Shigan (Louis Gossett Jr.)  in Alien Mine. Then again, that could just be me. Still, Krall was the right level of maniac and killer making him a pretty good villain.

The movie reminds us why we love Star Trek.  It isn't just action and adventure.  It is also about acceptance and the strength that happens in unity. Individuality may make us stronger and independent, but unity makes us unbreakable.  All the cast have integral parts to play. It's not just Kirk wins or Spock saves the day, but each, from Chekov to Sulu to Uhura to Scotty to McCoy, all has a part to play. We see the relationships that we came to know and love with Shatner and Nimoy and company are now forming with Pine and Quinto and company.  After fifty years, Star Trek seems to be in pretty good hands. I will buy the Blu-ray. 

And now in the Center Ring...

Now that the clown car is almost empty, I am sure you are wondering why, oh why, I have not blogged about the politics and the reason is simple: until the candidates were settled there was little to say. I would point out that before Ted Cruz was supposedly the first candidate to announce, there were actually 194 other candidates, including 55 Republicans, who beat Cruz to the punch. Still, the clown car on the Republican side was so overflowing with candidates a few were required to ride on the running boards or grab on to the bumper while riding a skateboard.

Bernie Sanders

I watched in fascination as they railed against the front-runner of the moment even before Trump led the pack. It was fascinating to watch them attack each other, especially Trump on everything except for the fact that all of them held pretty much the same opinion. Trump and extreme points-of-view are monsters of their own making. The same is really true on the left, too. Let's face it, the Grand Old Party began courting more than evangelicals a few years ago. They also wanted the less lovely groups more . As ye sew, so shall ye reap. The establishment candidates ranted and raved that they would not support Trump, and as soon as the loyal base elected him, the party leaders announced that maybe they would support him after all. Sad to stand on such principles as to vote for the party before country.

On the left, the clown car was more spacious. It was fascinating how Bernie Sanders, essentially a one-issue candidate, convinced people he was a Washington outsider, even though he has been in office in D.C. since 1990, has been in politics since 1980 and became a Democrat in 2015 just before announcing his run for President. Since his loss, he has maneuvered to control what goes into the Democrat platform. The platform whether Republican or Democrat is that wondrous thing that most folks running for office tend to ignore. It's there for the base. It is true that Sanders has moved Hillary to the left which is about as much "Feeling the Bern" anyone is actually going to get.

Gary Johnson

So now there are two. Donald J. Trump, Republican, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat, will be the major contenders.  I am actually in a somewhat interesting position in that I actually know people who know both Trump and Clinton. There is actually I think only one other candidate that hopes to be on the ballot in all 50 states besides these two: Gary Johnson,Libertarian, about whom I know very little.

It has been a long time since two candidates were so disliked by the general electorate.  Hillary has long battled the trust issue which, in all honesty, is a narrative that has been constructed by her and her husband's opponents over many years.  Is it well deserved? Saying that a politician doesn't lie is like announcing sharks are vegetarians.  Is she guilty of poor judgement? With the email thing, yes. Then again, private emails were used on a regular basis by several Secretaries of State, or for that matter, by many government officials.  John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use solely a U.S. government account. The separate server is not new either.  There was even one in the George W. Bush Whitehouse that some 22 million emails were deleted from when congress asked for information about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. 

Hillary R. Clinton

I also know that up until the email scandal and the Benghazi incident, perhaps the most investigated incident in congressional history which has pretty much come up with nothing new, Clinton was actually pretty popular as Secretary of State and New York voters were satisfied with her as a senator, but then again her polling has always been up and down since she first came into the spotlight in 1992.

Still, the trust issue is very real, although, despite all the memes and pundits, she has not been convicted or even tried for anything. Like it or not, in the U.S.A. we still have a presumption of innocent until proven guilty, although you would think of late that isn't true, at least on social media. Nevertheless, she will still carry the "Teflon" Clinton name.

What people who know Hillary think, or so I am told, is that she is smart, and it is all about Hillary when she is in the room. 

Then there is Donald Trump.  Trump has zero political experience.  He is litigious by nature. He or his companies having been involved in at least 3500 court actions.  His record on lying is not much better. According to Politifact, 180 statements made by candidate Trump, only 19 fell into the true or mostly true category while a whopping 135 were rated  "mostly false" to "pants on fire." He even won the 2015 "Lie of the Year." He was a major supporter of the Birther movement. He has regularly attacked women and minorities in his speeches and on his twitter feed. While some think that his statements are just an appeal to the base, I wonder if that's a base to whom we really want to appeal.  It seems to me that at some point, Trump's seeming racist and misogynistic statements cease being appeals to baser beliefs and begin to reflect true beliefs of the candidate.

Donald J. Trump

He has announced different positions on the same ideas often within days. Like Bernie convincing people he is not a Washington insider, Trump has convinced people that he understands what it is like to be without money, despite the fact that Trump's father, also a real estate developer, was worth between $250 to $400 million dollars at his death. Trump has never lived pay check to pay check.  He did take his part of his inheritance and build it into his fortune of today, although no one is actually sure what the real numbers are. He is a billionaire but what he is worth depends on who you talk to. Trump says 10 billion while experts like Bloomberg and Forbes say it is more likely between 2.5 and 4 billion dollars. 

There are no economists I could find who believe that his statements will do anything but lessen the tax burden on the wealthy even more and not cause a massive recession.  How does one become a master at economics when his companies have used (or abused) the laws to file for bankruptcy four times. 

His wall is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous and so is his idea that he will somehow make Mexico pay for it.  His ideas on trade are not the only thing that will create massive economic problems. His ban on Muslims would be unconstitutional, harken back to the days when we put another group of non-combatants into camps in WWII, and it would also prevent the Mayor of London from entering the USA for any negotiations, since he is Muslim, not to mention other Muslim leaders and business people from around the world. 

He has claimed to be a moral leader, despite the fact that he is on his third marriage.  Look, I get it, people are angry at Washington. Putting support behind the one true outsider, whose trust quotient and obvious lack of understanding world events, is not a good answer-it is the wrong answer.  

What people who know Trump think, or so I am told, is that Trump thinks he is the smartest person in the room and he wants it to be all about Trump.  

We have much at stake to put it simply. 

A truly disturbing picture, and
yes,it blinks. 

Warcraft Lacks Craft

I've played World of Warcraft for awhile.  I wanted to love Blizzard's newest franchise, Warcraft.  I wanted to like Warcraft. I don't.  It is a spectacular CGI movie, and the actors all did fine considering what they had to work with.  The battle scenes are huge although more than a couple of times I noticed CGI characters in the background that seemed to be set to attack, but they seemed to be caught in a kind of Gif-like loop.  You know like that one guy in the group fight scene in a kung fu movie waiting for his turn in the choreography?

The problem I had is that the movie wanted to be a broad and epic scope of Lord of the Rings, but it lacked important elements like story and character.  It was not from a lack of trying.  It had moments where there was an attempt at backstory, exposition, and other ideas, but after an attempt to reveal, it turns to just telling the viewer.  Then there is the sudden appearance of things like "a demon" or that the bad guy requires the help of the demon, but even after the demon is dead, the bad guy still glows green for some unknown reason.

Take for example the relationship between the main character Lothar and his son.  Lothar's relationship appears protective and somewhat strained.  Lothar finally just announces the history of his relationship with his son.  There is no story there, no reveal, no real feeling between the two.  The closest anyone comes to showing a relationship is between the Orc, Durotan and his wife but the moment is fleeting. Then it is announced that Durotan is a chieftain. As I said, the movie does try.

The ending, which I will leave spoiler free, is inexplicable.  Obviously set up for a sequel, it still makes no sense.

The problem is that the movie is the game. I've played World of Warcraft off and on for three or so years, and the game's storyline works because we are participants in the world.  The problem with the movie, Warcraft, is the story is now viewed from the outside.  The audience is not a participant as they are if they play, but the movie makes no allowance for this.  It's the game and unfortunately, the game is not enough of a story, and we have no feel for who these characters are or why they are important.

Sorry, but as much as I wanted to like this movie, I just didn't.  I won't be buying the dvd.

X-Men Apocalypse: Liking the Movie-Well, It's Complicated

For those of you have not seen X-Men Apocalypse and if you're a fan, I have one word: Phoenix.  If you're a fan, when you see it, you will get it, if not take a fan and have them explain it to you.  If you are reading critics who are negative on this film, chances are pretty good they are not comic book nerds or have not followed even the animated series.  For this movie, it's going to be complicated.  My wife complains that too often when she goes to these movies, she feels like she's missing something since she didn't follow comics when she was a kid or an adult. She was also not the one who got up and watched shows like Thundercats and X-Men on Saturday with our son.  I was the resident nerd and truth be told, I have always loved these things. 

So, going to see X-Men Apocalypse for those who haven't followed the series or is a neophyte to the X-Men movies, it's going to have a few gaps for you along with back stories.  The other problem is that it is pretty clear that Apocalypse is setting up the franchise for years to come.  It seeks to correct the feeble attempt of setting up what is called the Dark Phoenix saga in X-Men III: Last Stand at which X-Men Apocalypse takes a pretty good potshot. The timeline of the film is in the space between the last battle in Days of Future Past and Wolverine waking up at the school at the very end of the movie. (I would like to point out that Stryker being actually Mystique in Days of Future Past at the end of the movie makes no sense and that it still doesn't.)

The other problem a newbie is going to face is that the original Apocalypse story is huge.  I think the original storyline ran for something like 50 plus comics. The movie makes all kinds of references to that series, and I have to admit, I had to look some of them up. What this means, to some there may be some holes, but to others, there will be some awesome Easter eggs to discover.  I liked the movie, but I am a nerd and have followed X-Men for a long, long time.

If you haven't seen the movie, you may want to leave at this point and come back after you've seen it. There be spoilers here!

SPOILER ALERT!!  SPOILER ALERT!!  SPOILER ALERT!!

Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac), who was once worshiped as a god, is the oldest of mutants.  He has gained the ability of transmuting or transferring his consciousness to other mutants. With each change, he gains that mutant's power making him basically indestructible and immortal.  Now, he has found Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) who he wants for his ability to enter and control all minds, human and mutants alike. He gathers his four protectors, as he always has.  They are Psylocke (Olivia Munn), Angel (Ben Hardy) Storm (Alexandra Shipp) - yes that Storm- and Magneto (Michael Fassbender).  Apocalypse enhances the mutant ability of each.  Magneto has a whole new pain and hate to channel because it is in this movie that we learn of the killing of his wife and child. 

With the taking of Professor X, the audience sees the rise of the young X-Men.  The ones that director Bryan Singer has been promising since First Class.  There is an adventure where Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and the CIA human Moira Mactaggert (Rose Byrne), who was the love interest of Professor X in First Class, must all be saved by young X-Men from the evil Colonel Stryker.  Of course, in the saving, we get a sampling of Weapon X which was the time that Wolverine was turned into a killing machine. We are given the first X-Men who are Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee).  By the end of the movie the full team is assembled with the X-Men now joined by Quicksilver and Storm who has realized the error of following Apocalypse. The X-Men are trained by Beast and Mystique but under the watchful protection of Professor X.  No, it's not all the X-Men.  We still are missing Rogue, Gambit, Iceman and Jubilee, although Jubilee does make a small appearance in the movie. There is also the return of Havoc who is Cyclops' brother. 

I do want to take issue with Mystique being an X-Men leader.  Mystique has, in the comics, always been sort of nebulas as a character. No one seems to know her age or allegiances.  There was even once a story line that she was the mother of Nightcrawler.  We all love Jennifer Lawrence but creating all this storyline just so she can appear more in the movies in her latex lack of clothing is kind of getting in the way.  I have never been sure why Mystique doesn't wear her trademark white dress from the comics.  There is actually only one costume that needs to make its appearance, and that is Wolverine's yellow spandex costume. Mystique is a fun and interesting character. She should not, however, become the lead character.  

I also loved the best sequence in the movie which steals the show.  Quicksilver's saving of the students at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.  It is truly a wonderful scene.  There is also the wonder of the costumes that Quicksilver wears especially his tee shirts.  When we see the speedster again, he wears a Six Million Dollar Man shirt.  In the saving seen he wears a rock tee, emblazoned with RUSH on the front.  What a great selection.

A word about Apocalypse:  In the comics, Apocalypse is an imposing and fear-inspiring person.  While Oscar Isaac is a strongly centered actor, the character just doesn't have quite that awesome visceral reaction.  Yes, the movie does talk about Apocalypse's incredible power, but other than his traveling ability, he doesn't come off quite as fearsome in the movie. Overall, though Apocalypse is a great introduction to the story arc which may be happening, given the events at the end of the movie. It's just that he isn't well developed. 

X-Men Apocalypse is well done, but may be a bit confusing for the uninitiated. Is it the best X-Men ever? No but it is a long way from the worst. I enjoyed the movie, and it is a good follow-up for Days of Future Past.  There are plenty of homages to the comics of the 80s and pop culture in general. The 3-D is probably not worth the extra cost. I look forward to the next one.  I will buy the Blu-ray. 

The Battle for Bucky

 

Captain America: Civil War is the third installment in the Captain America movies, and it also as much of an Avenger's movie as it is a Captain America.  Of all the comic book movies out floating around, the Captain America series remains a favorite.  It has action and humor and continues the ideas established in the first two movies about the dangers of unchecked power and that not all right and wrong is black and white.

 

 DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!...DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

THERE BE SPOILERS HERE.

The Civil War or tearing apart of the Avengers centers on Captain America's lost friend Bucky Barnes who was turned into the Winter Soldier by the evil organization Hydra in the second Captain America movie.  Bucky is accused of a bombing of a United Nations meeting, and Captain America knows that if he doesn't bring in the Winter Soldier, Bucky is going to be killed.  So Captain America, Steve Rogers, must choose between his loyalty to The Avengers and to his friend who saved his life and says he is innocent. Add to this mix is a United Nations accord that wants to control the Avengers because of the damage by their battles in the previous movies.  Unlike their much darker brethren in the DC movie universe, the heroes of the Marvel universe feel the death and destruction that results in their battles.  Never mind that those battles saved the planet, the casualties of war still create holes and problems and hurt for those that are left behind.  Tony "Ironman" Stark worries that the Avengers should not be unchecked while the old warrior, Steve "Captain America" Rogers worries that the Avengers will become as much a political tool as an instrument of salvation for people.

Enter the Bucky Barnes storyline.  One of those people, Helmut Zemo has lost everything as a result of the Avengers' battle with Ultron. He has determined to destroy the Avengers by creating strife in the group.  If there is a fault with the movie, it is the logic of the writing.  Even as egotistical as Tony Stark is he would see that Zemo is doing before the final battle at the end of the movie.  Captain America is trying only to defend Bucky from the vengeance-driven Ironman. Still the friendship and the loyalty that should have been formed in the battles done by the Avengers seem easily breached and paper-thin.  We are reminded that it is Captain America and the Winter Soldier and the Iron Patriot that are the old warriors. 

The movie introduces a few new characters. The first is the security head Everett Ross whose job it is to take care of first Bucky Barnes and then later Helmut Zemo.  He is actually originally a character from the Black Panther comics who is an ally of the Black Panther and an expert of the fictional kingdom of Wakanda.  He is played by Martin Freeman who has mastered the art of the quiet hero in his stints as Watson in Sherlock and Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit.  With Ross, of course, there is also the hero, Black Panther or King T'Challa of Wakanda.  What ties Black Panther into the story is that Wakanda is the place that the mysterious mineral added to Vibranium which makes up the Black Panther's costume armor as well as creating Captain America's trademark shield.  Black Panther too is driven by vengeance for the death of his father in the UN bombing.  It is the Black Panther who delivers the statement or another theme in the movie about the cost of revenge. Black Panther is played by Chadwick Boseman who does quite well with the role.  

We are also introduced to the Marvel Universe's new Spiderman, played by Tom Holland.  He is one of the truly enjoyable aspects of the movies.  Marvel has determined to return to the teen Peter Parker who chatters on incessantly and is filled with youthful exuberance.  Holland is, at least from the glimpse we get, perfect as Spiderman. I am not so sure that the "hot" Aunt May played by Marisa Tomei is a choice I agree with, but it makes for an interesting take. 

The villain, Helmut Zemo, is played by an actor, who every time I see him, my appreciation grows.  Daniel Brühl manages to play comic book villain Baron Zemo as both evil and sympathetic at the same time.  We understand his pain but also despise his quest for vengeance at all cost.  There is also the introduction of a possible new villain, Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross who is that power-hungry political functionary that we have come to expect in the Marvel world. Ross is played perfectly by William Hurt. 

The fun of the movie is clear.  We have heroes who we can cheer for who still find some joy in life.  The honest and good Hawkeye or the "just trying to find my place in the world" Scarlet Witch or the all too gentle and human machine called the Vision all make us understand the price that our heroes must pay. The battle between the Avengers is fun and at the same time unsettling because we know that they are friends on different sides who are simply trying to do what is right. Still moments like Captain America driving around in a Volkswagen bug with the Falcon and The Winter Soldier is a visual that I will not soon forget, especially as the Winter Soldier complains to the Falcon who won't move his seat up. This is a problem that anyone who has ridden in a VW Bug will understand. 

The movie is a good one and quite enjoyable and fun.  At almost two and a half hours, it was easy to sit through.  I don't think that the 3-D did much to add to the movie and a few of the battles used that blurry motion effect so "popular" in the Transformer movies.  I didn't like it then, and I am still not a fan in Captain America: Civil War.  The Marvel movies continue to remind us that superheroes must also be folks that offer more than just protection but hope too.  I will buy the Blu-ray. 

Panthers, Tigers and Bears and Mowgli too...

Disney's new "live" action The Jungle Book, produced and directed by Jon Favreau, is clearly a work of love. It is a live action only in the sense that Mowgli played by newcomer Neel Sethi is the only non-CGI character in the movie. It is an amazing film that while maintaining all the charm of the 1967 movie intensifies the plot and characters with incredible details.

All, well most of the songs, you may have loved in the original are there.  You haven't heard anything until you've heard Christopher Walken sing "I Wanna Be Like You" as King Loui.  There are some small or large changes depending on what kind of purist you are.  Kaa, the snake, is truly creepy and the animals are incredibly real, if not a bit over-sized.  Just don't go in expecting to see elephants marching in a line under the gaze of a British colonel with a riding crop. They are instead majestic and noble creatures who have become a part of the creation myth of the jungle animals. 

As I said, the animals are CGI and if there is one flaw, they are huge.  They dwarf Mowgli on the screen.  I don't know the actual size of jungle animals well enough but Loui, for example, could hold Mowgli in the palm of his hand.  Even the baby elephant towers above the man-cub.  Kaa's length is larger than any snake you've ever seen in a Hollywood horror movie.  Symbolic? Perhaps.  For the animals are strong and glorious but even Shere Khan knows of the dangers of what could happen when the man-cub becomes a man.

Our one encounter with "man" is when Mowgli seeks

fire.  It is clear that man is not in tune with nature.  They build a fire in their village that is far larger than it needs to be.  Perhaps it is a view of man from the animals or perhaps an indication of how little men understand the natural world surrounding them. The scene is disturbing as the only "men" we see are mostly in silhouette.  The only other man we see is Mowgli's dad who once made his way into the jungle where all creatures learn to defend their "people" which is how he dies, defending Mowgli against Shere Khan.


The voice acting is, for the most part, well done.  I have to admit, of all the characters the one I still remain least enamoured of is that of Bill Murray as Baloo the bear.  Don't get me wrong, I love Bill Murray and the actor he has become.  I understand why he was cast as the charming con-bear.  There was just something that occasionally didn't quite fit.  The only other issue I noticed was Idris Elba's gritty British street accent did creep through a bit at the end as Mowgli faced Elba's Shere Khan.

Overall, The Jungle Book is intense and moving and wonderfully done.  The oddest thing in the movie was the strange "thank you for coming to see the movie" from Jon Favreau before the movie. The young actor Neel Sethi held his own as Mowgli in what would have been a tough role even for a seasoned veteran FX movie actor.  I liked the movie. It is perhaps a bit intense for younger viewers, but it is well worth your time.  Even the end credits were entertaining.  

Dark Musings for Nerds

A friend posted an article on losing Superman as an icon because of the more recent Batman v Superman and Man of Steel.  The author of the article bemoaned the loss of clean cut superhero played by Christopher Reeves in the late 70's mentioning that he saw the movie when he was four. He even mentioned that Superman Returns with Brandon Routh had more of that clean-cut, wonderful feeling of the 70's movie than the much darker Batman v Superman.  He's right the recent incarnation of Superman is darker, but it is not the death of an American icon.  That ship sailed with the comic book Death of Superman series.  There is also now the multi-verse which has every kind of Superman.  The waking nightmare that Batman has in Batman v Superman is a set up that has nothing to do with the movie and was inspired by one of those universes.  Batman fears Superman so that enters his dream, but he also gives us a glimpse of the arrival of Darkseid the ultimate villain. Batman comes awake to see the time traveling Flash.  It is a confusing sequence, but one of the issues the movie has and why it probably seems so disjointed is simply the impossible was asked.  In one movie, Christopher Nolan, who has been given the reins of the DC Universe, was supposed to set up the entire slate of movies Warner Brothers intends to make over the next several years.  Mistakes were made.

I don't actually intend to defend Batman v Superman. It clearly has its problems.  What the discussion by the article and the comments on my friend's post did was start me to thinking.  Is Zack Snyder, as one commentator put it, lazy and a bad storyteller and is Batman v Superman and Man of Steel just a culmination of DC and Warner Brother's dark vision.  I don't actually believe that Nolan or Snyder hate Superman as the article states.  I think there is more here.  Maybe, we just don't want to see our heroes through rose-colored lenses with a dash of Pollyanna anymore.  The fact is that action movies, including comic book movies, are getting darker as are the comics themselves.

I for one was thrilled when Tim Burton returned the dark to the Dark Knight. Batman the movie was the first video I ever bought.  It's not that I don't wax nostalgic when I see or hear about the Adam West Batman, but the fact is the Batman TV series of the flower power days was silly, over-the-top goofiness but not really even close to the original comic book Batman who uses a gun, by the way.  You see Batman in the comics and Batman in films and TV is actually pretty complicated and so is Superman, who used not fly but jump in his original appearance and was a little less discerning about who he killed until the 1950's.  (BTW Reeves killed Zod in Superman II.)The idea of them not killing or using guns was not really a "let's give our superheroes as a squeaky clean image or a call to nobility." Actually, it was more of  "how do we bring back popular villains if we let our heroes kill them off?" moment. It's not that Batman, Superman, Daredevil, or others haven't killed or will kill; it's that it is more convenient if they don't.

Horror movies and action movies have been darker and getting darker really since the late 60's or early 70's.  The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Freddie, Jason, even Zombies were far darker than killer ants or gigantic women affected by atomic radiation. I remind you that The Werewolf with Lon Chaney Jr. is a different movie from the dark comic overtones of American Werewolf in London.   Bella Lugosi's Dracula was not nearly as dark as was Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman. Movies are darker, even edgier in many a case.

We also have another issue that faces movies, the anticipation factor.  We know more about an upcoming movie and rumors about upcoming movies than we ever did before.  There was outrage when Ben Affleck was cast as Batman.  Imagine what it would've been like on Facebook if Star Wars: A New Hope had been made today.  We do have The Force Awakens, though. We got every rumor, every detail of these two movies, every injury, every casting idea and theory from "Jar Jar is a Sith Lord" to "Sad Batman memes."

The anticipation of movies, especially in the nerd realm, is, I think, devastating at times.  Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Star Trek, have all had to survive the pre-judgement, theories and second-guesses of every nerd site, nerd with a basic knowledge and nerd without taste on the internet.  All I know is that Michael Keaton was the only thing we discussed when he was cast as Batman, and we may have spent all of 15 minutes worrying about it and reading the one or two articles in fan magazines.  Over-anticipation of any film is not a good thing.  I was disappointed by E.T. the Extraterrestrial not because it was a bad film, but all I had heard about and read about it was how wonderful it was. It had been out a while by the time I got to see it, and all I could see was a boy and his dog story with Eliot and the alien.  Imagine how difficult the secret would be to keep these days if everyone knew Bruce Willis was dead in the Sixth Sense or Rosebud was a sled in Citizen Kane. I honestly wonder how some movies survive Twitter and Facebook.  Batman v Superman has had a heap of hate put on it and not because of the problems it has but for problems the critics had.  It was getting bad reviews before it had actually opened and there is little doubt that some of those "reviews" were by people who hadn't seen the movie.

Think I am wrong? Imagine movies like Dead Pool being made even 10 or 15 years ago. There was the adaptation of Blade in 1998, but R-rated movies just weren't discussed much in comic book world.  Now with Dead Pool, there will be R-rated Wolverine III and an R-rated director's cut of Batman V. Superman. Even Star Wars: The Force Awakens is PG-13 and if Star Wars: A New Hope had the PG-13 available, it would still be barely a PG movie today.

Unlike the person who wrote the article that started all this, I didn't see Superman in 1978 when I was four. I saw it when I was 21, so my point-of-view about the clean cut Christopher Reeves movie is not as a child but as someone who grew up reading the grittier comics of the 60's like Savage Sword of Conan and Luke Cage, Hero for Higher and Silver Surfer.  I found the chemistry between Reeves and Kidder as frequently awkward.  Don't believe me? Watch this scene. I trust you'll see what I mean immediately.  I didn't read Superman or Batman because how hokey and silly they'd become in the "feel good, I'm okay, you're okay" 60's and 70's.  I wanted harder and troubled hero's.  I was thrilled as those harder edged comic book writers came of age in the 80's and  90's.  Really, if the rumor is to be believed, the whole Death of Superman was actually an attempt to reboot the Man of Steel to someone who wasn't quite so completely indestructible.

My point is that to expect movies to do the television, comic book or movie we saw when we were younger is both unrealistic and unfair to the modern filmmakers.  I believe movies or movie series stand on their own merit and that is why I may seem more forgiving.  I am not a Marvel v DC guy. I look at movies or movie series as they are.  To compare Ben Affleck with George Clooney as the Knight, would be wrong as wrong as not giving Affleck a chance because he played in oh say Dare Devil or blaming Ryan Reynolds for Green Lantern and missing that he is the quintessential Dead Pool even if he was stuck doing Dead Pool in Wolverine Origins. Moviemakers make decisions. Actors make decisions. Studios make decisions. Scriptwriters make decisions. Producers make decisions. Directors make decisions. Not all of them are good. Not all of them are bad.  Movies grow and change according to what sells and vision.