Nerd Herding at Superspeed

As we bask in the glow of SDCC 2014, and not knowing what exactly, if anything, Warner Bros. might divulge about the upcoming JUSTICE LEAGUE movie, I wanted to get something quick down about my thoughts on casting.

We've got Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg cast so far.  That leaves two more JLA heavy hitters that need to be cast:  Green Lantern and The Flash.  I called Affleck as Batman months before it actually happened (more desired fan-casting than industry scoop), and I have my thoughts on Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa as well, but we'll save that for another post.  Right now, I want to talk about The Fastest Man Alive.

The Flash can be the heart of the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie, its emotional center.  Whether Barry Allen or Wally West, the Scarlet Speedster is a working class superhero; a good man with extraordinary powers trying to do what's right.  He should be an everyman.  He should be the hero we root for in a movie filled with them.

He should be Chuck Bartowski.

Anyone who's familiar with this blog (all six of you) knows that CHUCK is one of my all-time favorite shows.  It should come as no surprise to you that I think Zachary Levi would make an inspired choice as either the Allen or West versions of The Flash.  He could play a determined and courageous forensic cop just as easily as the young hero doing his best to honor the memory of his fallen mentor.  Either way, they should embrace the humor and lightheartedness that Michael Rosenbaum brought to the character in the JUSTICE LEAGUE animated series by locking in Levi.

Zachary Levi is a giant star waiting to happen.  He's immensely talented, as both an actor of stage and screen (he can sing too!).  His turn as Chuck was only a fraction of what Levi could and should be.  He has the looks and charm of a leading man with a humility, respect, and warmth for the geek/fan community that really endears him to the core audience that drives these movies.  He's already gotten a comic book movie under his belt as Fandral of The Warriors Three in THOR:  THE DARK WORLD.  Hell, he was even blonde!

I know this is a pipe dream, but this would be the perfect vehicle to bring Zachary Levi into the big time.  They'll likely announce Zac Efron, or some other young actor that moves the needle, to play some amalgam caraciture of The Flash with limited depth and impact.  Zack Snyder probably just thinks he needs to put a guy on screen, make him run super fast, rig up some cool time slowdown effects, and call it a day.  God help them if they screw up The Flash

So there it is.  I'd give anything to see Zachary Levi as the Flash.

Chuck as The Flash, Blue and Gold, and other ways I'd help WB with their DC "problem." PART 1

It's been a while since I've written here, but it's not like anyone was reading this anyway.

"The Problem"

The recent rumors of WB's planned DC slate over the next few years has been generating a lot of commentary online and in social media, most of it skeptical and not nearly enough excited.  The conventional wisdom is that WB just doesn't "get it," and is rushing to market an inferior product to compete with Marvel and to ride the wave created by Marvel's success, and to a lesser extent the success of the Dark Knight Trilogy.

I have several problems with the conventional wisdom, but first, a disclaimer:  I am a DC fanboy.  Like, hard.  I love all comics, love a lot of Marvel comics as well, and have been thoroughly ensorceled by their cinematic efforts.  But DC Comics are my religion.  Superman.  Batman.  Wonder Woman.  This is my trinity.  Where you see the S-Shield or Bat symbol, I see a cross or star of David.  These characters are gods among men, the stuff of legend and myth.

Marvel likes to tout how "real" their heroes are, and to a certain extent it works for them, but it's also what makes them just a little less impressive.  DC heroes inspire such an immense sense of wonder, and dwell in a realm of the unbelievable, that elevates them from mere superheroes and turns them into iconography.

So, then, why is this so hard?

"The Competition"

One thing needs to be made abundantly clear:  Warner Brothers is not competing with Marvel.

Marvel has amassed astonishing critical and commercial success following a tight, cost-effective strategy employing unique directing choices and fantastic, but affordable (save for Downey), casting.  Marvel is the Tampa Bay Rays at their peak; a small market wonder competing at the highest possible level and making all the right moves.  Now that they have Disney backing them, they also have a safety net.

Warner Brothers is the Yankees.  This is the studio of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (WB acquired New Line Cinema in 2008), The Dark Knight, Superman, The Matrix, Lethal Weapon, The Exorcist, Bonnie and Clyde, All the President's Men, The Goonies, The Color Purple, Goodfellas, JFK, The Fugitive, Heat, and Space Jam, just to name a few.

Warner Brothers has been making movies longer than Superman, Captain America, or even Mickey Mouse has existed.  They're competing with the very history of the film industry that they helped establish, not Marvel.

Put another way, this is Tesla vs. GM.  Tesla is a fascinating company making an amazing, cutting-edge product.  GM is an industry giant that has been making Cadillacs and Corvettes since before my dad was born.

We're creating a false equivalency between Marvel movies and DC movies driven purely by their histories as comic book companies, where Marvel has enjoyed much more recent and consistent success.  That means nothing to Warner Brothers.  To them, DC is just a bin full of properties waiting to make them money, and Marvel is just the new kid on the block.

If you get anything out of this post, it should be that comparing the mechanics of the Marvel cinematic universe to any kind of DC cinematic universe is useless.  The relationship between Marvel and its movies is much closer, and has far fewer moving parts, than DC and the movies Warner Brothers intends to make.  It isn't helpful, nor does it necessarily make any sense.  I know this is futile, and comparisons are inevitable, but these movies are going to succeed or fail based on whether or not they are actually good movies, bottom line.

Rest assured, Warner Brothers knows how to make a successful movie, and are not feeling pressure from the success of Marvel.

"The Real Problem"

This brings us to the real problem, one that we can't really gauge.

Marvel's cinematic efforts are headed by Kevin Feige and an advisory board of sorts including the likes of Joe Quesada and Brian Bendis.  These are all people who are invested in the Marvel properties themselves and in being stewards of those properties, and telling great stories with them.  This helps them to make movies that honor hardcore fans, while still appealing to a broader crowd and making piles of cash for their relatively shiny and new corporate overlords.

Warner Brothers is a movie studio run by movie studio executives.  They aren't beholden to DC Comics one bit.  They formed DC Entertainment as a subsidiary that now contains DC Comics, and installed Geoff Johns as Chief Creative Officer, in order to better manage their properties.  Their goal isn't to tell great stories, so much as it is to tell great stories in the sauna at their club while they use the piles of cash they make off of our childhood memories to stoke the fires.  That's not to say they don't care about or respect the fanbase.  That's why they chose Geoff Johns as CCO.  It was a nod to fans meant to reassure them, but at the same time, it serves their purposes.

They didn't put a straight-up comics guy like Jim Lee in there. Sure, Johns is an amazing comic writer, probably the best we have today, but he got his start in the movie business working for Richard Donner.   It makes sense, Johns is the best of both worlds.  He's a DC Comics insider, but he also knows how the industry works, and where his bread is buttered.  So when push comes to shove, WB can be sure he'll do what's right for the bottom line.

I mean, he endorsed the Green Lantern movie.  Maybe he really did think it was great, but we all know otherwise.  Deep down, he probably does too.  They put this property, which is probably the hardest DC property to fully realize given the breadth and scope of the fiction, into the hands of movie people (a mildly successful TV writer, and a James Bond director) who didn't really understand what they had or how to fully execute on it.  (Why did a movie about an intergalactic policeman spend so much time down on Earth alone, and so little time in space with the thousands of alien space cops?)

They took the material and made what they thought a comic book movie about Green Lantern should look like, but they didn't make a Green Lantern movie.

And that's the real problem here.

DC fans can't be sure they're ever going to see the movies they want to see, the way Marvel fans have.  The men in charge are businessmen, not DC guys.  They have no real connection to the material, other than a desire to use the properties to make successful films.

But fan service can mean big business.  They saw that first-hand with Harry Potter.  They were remarkably faithful to the material, given the amount they needed to cover, and were rewarded with piles and piles of money of many different colors from many different lands.

Hopefully, they've learned whatever lessons from Green Lantern they had to learn.  Man of Steel, while polarizing and definitely far from perfect, was a step in the right direction at least in aesthetic and tone (though I could do for a little more hope and joy in my Superman), and did some solid world-building for this new universe.

Now, with Batman VS Superman, they need to step it up.  They need to get the Batman/Superman dynamic right.  They need to get Wonder Woman right ( I have doubts).  If they can pull that off, Justice League has a shot at being the biggest movie the world's ever seen.

NEXT:  A Nerd Herder in the League?

Forget Killing Him; Bill Needs To Shut Up

CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING IS A GEEK FUELED DIATRIBE PERTAINING TO SEVERAL ASPECTS OF COMICS AND GENRE FILMS. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

I love Quentin Tarantino. I love his directing, I love his writing, I love his general outlook on film and life as a whole...but when he gets it wrong, he really gets it wrong.

In the final scenes of KILL BILL VOL. 2, the titular character, Bill, engages in a roundabout metaphor about how Beatrix Kiddo is a killer, and pretending to be anything else is just that, pretending. He comes by this metaphor by way of a self-professed love of comic books, particularly those with Superheroes, and even more particularly those with Superman.

His thesis is such: Superman is an all-powerful being born of the planet Krypton. When he decides he needs a secret identity, he chooses that of Clark Kent; a bespectacled, bumbling, foolish weakling. How Superman portrays Clark Kent is his commentary on humanity, and how he sees us as fragile, unevolved mortals, worthy of pity.

It's well-reasoned pop psychology, beautifully written as a dark and probing soliloquy highlighting the eccentricities and basic philosophy of the film's main villain. Tarantino is the master of winding, one-sided dialogue, and this example holds up to his standard.

The only problem is it's a load of crap.

Complete and utter bollocks (to borrow a phrase from across the pond).

Quentin Tarantino is a genius filmmaker, a prolific writer, and an expert on the history and art of film. Unfortunately, he appears to possess only a cursory knowledge of Comics, and is far from an expert.

Luckily for me, and you my dear reader (if you are still reading this, in which case I want to be your dear friend if I'm not already), I am an expert.

To say that Clark Kent is Superman telling his adopted planet that their inhabitants are simply less than, is a disservice to Superman, Clark Kent, and all of humanity.

A baby from another planet crash landed on a Kansas farm, and was raised by the warm and loving Jonathan and Martha Kent. They named the child Clark and raised him as their own. He grew up learning about the values of love, integrity, humility, hard work, fair play, justice, and humanity's many other fine traits from two loving, human parents.

Save for his Kryptonian heritage, and his subsequently endowed super powers, Clark Kent represents the greatest humanity has to offer. Yes, he plays up his nerdy reporter act, but only because his single means of disguise otherwise would be a pair of black-rimmed glasses (sigh, shakes head).

He puts on the tights and cape and becomes Superman so that when he fights the enemies of all that he was raised to believe in, they won't turn around and go after his family and friends. Clark Kent puts on the big red "S"; Superman doesn't throw on a suit and tie. Superman is the mask, not Clark Kent.

Superman's love and admiration of everything that humanity is and all that we could be is the reason he fights in the first place.

Bill's reading of his favorite hero's choice of identities is his way of explaining his view that nature always trumps nurture, that you can't change who you are. The Nature vs. Nurture debate is a long-standing one that goes to the core of basic human behavior. The most likely, and most honest answer Psychological researchers would give you would say that it's probably not one or the other, but rather a mixture of the two. Just because you're born one way, doesn't mean you can't evolve into something else. And just because you take the dog out of the fight, doesn't always mean you can take the fight out of the dog, either.

The human condition is so complex that it's impossible to boil down to absolutes, one way or the other. In fairness, maybe a character like Bill sees life in terms of absolutes, thus coloring his interpretation of the world's greatest superhero's story. Maybe Tarantino has made a valid point somewhere in there.

Probably not, though. He's just wrong.

This isn't just my humble opinion. It's my expert opinion.

I may only have a B.A. in Psychology, but I've got a Doctorate in Comics.

Goodbye, Chuck. Goodbye, Twenties.

Last Friday, CHUCK, one of my favorite shows, ended after five seasons. It was a great show that was a lot of fun and had a lot of heart. Five days later, I'm faced with another milestone: I'm turning thirty.

I'm not really one of those people that hates getting older, but it does make you think about things. With CHUCK ending, I've been thinking about how some TV shows, movies, and music can really define different times in your life.

My earliest memory is sitting in a high chair watching a Wham video (I think it was "Careless Whisper"). When I started Kindergarten, I was watching WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY pretty much 24/7. Starting in sixth grade, I got to "stay up late" on Thursdays and watch ER with my Mom. Unfortunately, when I think of Senior year of high school, I think of N*SYNC's "Bye Bye Bye" as much as CHAPPELLE'S SHOW reminds me of college and THE O.C. reminds me of my first year of law school.

CHUCK is one of those shows for me, but it came at a very strange time in my life. The show began as I was finishing law school and taking the Bar exam. In a way, I was embarking on my new journey as an attorney at the same time Chuck was starting his spy career.

For the majority of these last five years, I've been basically unemployed. I say that because outside of some contract document review work, I could not find a steady job. Sure, I had my fledgling law practice, and I gained invaluable experience on the few cases I had, but they were few and infrequent. Meanwhile, CHUCK's story was just as rocky. After its second season, ratings weren't great, and it was unknown whether or not it would get a third season.

It wasn't looking good, but people who loved the show and wanted it to succeed were coming out by the hundreds, demanding that the show be renewed. It worked. Chuck was renewed for a third season. Then a fourth. Then a fifth. I'm proud to say I was one of those vocal fans campaigning for the show.

If it wasn't looking good for CHUCK, it was looking pretty bleak for me, too. As I've written before, it can get pretty depressing and hopeless when you're unemployed. The only reason I got through it is because I had people who loved me and wanted me to succeed just like CHUCK. With every laugh and every word of encouragement, my hope was renewed. I was renewed. And as I was there for CHUCK, it was there for me too, providing laughs and getting my mind off of things, if only for an hour a week.

Now, as CHUCK rides off into the sunset after five great seasons and a very satisfying finale, I'm starting a new phase of my life. I'm turning thirty, and next week I'll be starting my new, full-time job.

As I leave behind this last few years of struggle and uncertainty, I'll take with me all the ways that my friends and family helped me through it. I'll remember the lessons I learned. I'll remember the bad days.

And, of course, I'll remember CHUCK.

Ding Dong Ghadafi's Dead

In honor of this auspicious day of tyranny toppling, I've decided to list, in no particular order and with great alliteration, the top five fictional depositions of despots.

The Wicked Witch of the East (THE WIZARD OF OZ)

Now, I know you're probably thinking "What about the Wicked Witch of the West? I mean, she was a pretty horrible lady." You'll get no argument from me. That emerald empress of evil was scary, but she was only in power for what, like a day and a half? When Dorothy dropped that house on the WWE, those Munchkins lost their minds. The entire village sang in unison about how happy they were to be out from under the iron broomstick of the previous owner of the ruby slippers. The Lullaby League AND the Lollipop Guild? You save that shit for The Wizard, not for some hillbilly with a terrier in a picnic basket. But if that hillbilly thwarts the scourge of your every waking hour? Yeah, you give her a bust in the hall of fame.

Emperor Palpatine (RETURN OF THE JEDI)

Any self-respecting STAR WARS geek would probably rate this as the all-timer in this category, and it's easy to see why. When first we meet him, he's a cackling, über-wrinkly, yellow-eyed man in a dress that sits in a chair for 90 percent of RETURN OF THE JEDI. Then, Vader goes soft and throws him into a reactor core. Over the course of those three preposterously painful prequels, you see more clearly what a total bastard Palpatine was. The most apt analogy would be that he was the Catholic priest to Anakin Skywalker's altar boy, and then after years of emotional (and likely sexual) abuse, the altar boy has a moment of clarity and throws the priest into a reactor core. And along the same lines as the Wicked Witch mentioned above, the entire galaxy goes batshit insane once news of his demise spreads. Galaxy wide death party = pretty huge bastard.

Sauron (THE LORD OF THE RINGS)

Over the course of three epic novels, and three epic movies, it's pretty much laid out how horrible life under Sauron can be. Volcanoes, orcs, massive deforestation, weird snake-dragons. It is said that one does not simply walk into Mordor. That is, unless you're a pair of three foot half-breeds in stolen armor. When Frodo finally gets rid of that ring, the giant tower adorned with the Eye of Sauron falls and the ground quite literally falls away beneath it and his hordes of followers. Pretty epic. As the forger of the One Ring, Sauron is the undisputed champion of literary assholes, with the possible exception of that logging company in THE LORAX.

King Koopa (SUPER MARIO BROS.)

I have defeated this turtle-dinosaur monster time and time again, and it never gets old. The minute I hop past him and grab that axe, sending him plunging into fiery lava, I feel like I just shot Hitler in the dick. Then, later on, you get to destroy all of his bastard children (there has never been any mention of a Queen or Mrs Koopa) in succession before destroying him again. Man, is it ever satisfying.

Scar (THE LION KING)

Scar is probably the most horrific villain in all of Disney cartoondom. He orchestrates the murder of his brother, then convinces his nephew it was his fault and urges him to run away from home. Dick move. To add insult to injury, he becomes King and sets to getting it on with the entire pride of his sisters-in-law (I'm assuming, based on my limited, but likely accurate knowledge of lion culture). All of a sudden, Ursula from THE LITTLE MERMAID looks like she's just having her weird, inky period. When Simba comes back and regulates, however, we get the triumphant reprisal of the "Circle of Life" opening, which is probably the best opening sequence to any movie ever. Seriously, just try to not get goosebumps when the giraffes kneel. You can't do it.

So there it is.

Ghadafi's dead. He was a real-life horror, and in the end, deserved everything he got.

Somebody call the Lollipop Guild...or whatever the Libyan equivalent is.

Remember, Remember...

Anyone who closely follows British History, comic books, or Natalie Portman's career should be familiar with the phrase "Remember, remember, the fifth of November..."

The phrase comes from a British nursery rhyme (popularized in the graphic novel V FOR VENDETTA, and its subsequent film adaptation) about a man infamous in British history and annually remembered on a national holiday: Guy Fawkes.

Guy Fawkes was a central figure in The Gunpowder Plot, in which several pro-Catholic British subjects, unhappy with the direction the country was headed under the Protestant rule of King James, decided they were going to stockpile barrels of gunpowder underneath Parliament, blow up the King, and replace him with his Catholic daughter, Princess Elizabeth (not one of the two Elizabeths of any note).

To make a long, traitorous story short, on November 5, 1605, Fawkes was discovered underneath Parliament, amidst what I would imagine was a "crapload" of gunpowder. He was arrested and tortured. He confessed, gave up his accomplices, and was found guilty of high treason. On his way up the scaffolding to be hanged, he jumped off the platform and broke his neck, thus avoiding his execution. Noble to the last.

Every year since, on the fifth of November, British subjects have celebrated the King's escape from The Gunpowder Plot by setting bonfires. Later, it became customary to burn effigies, usually of the Pope, but more recently of political figures the public disagrees with.

My point is, we've come a long way as a society, as far as civil disobedience is concerned.

Whatever you think about Occupy Wall Street and its message, you have to respect the fact that they're merely flooding the streets with clever signs, and not strapping C4 to the walls of the New York Stock Exchange.

They've been referred to as "anti-capitalist" by Herman Cain, Republican Candidate for President, head of a pizza chain I've never heard of and the GOP's current "black friend." Mitt Romney, perpetual Republican Candidate for President and member of a certain Utah-based church that funneled $22 Million to support an out-of-state gay marriage ban, has called the protests "dangerous" and "class warfare." Meanwhile, both unconditionally support the Tea Party.

We live in a country where the political discourse about our problems has become Black and White, when what are needed are solutions bathed in Grey. We talk, but don't listen. Each side has static talking points and static viewpoints, which gets us nowhere in an ever-changing world.

Whenever a significant portion of the American citizenry has something reasonable and non-hateful to say (whether they be Tea Partiers or Occupiers), and they're merely asking for someone to listen, we owe it to them and to our country to sit down and have a discussion with them.

If you put Tea Partiers and Occupiers in the same room for long enough, I bet there'd be quite a bit that they agree on (poster board and glitter decorating tips aside). But our political leaders tell us to listen to only one viewpoint, the viewpoint that benefits them politically, and, more often than not, financially.

There's so much more that unites us than divides us.

Guy Fawkes and a bunch of other limey traitors forgot that on November 5, 1605.

We'd all do well to remember.

Terminally Unemployed

Today, I went to see 50/50, the much acclaimed cancer comedy starring Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon Leavitt. Other than being really good and really funny, it connected with me in a way I hadn't expected.

First off, short of a full-on movie review, let me just say that this was one extremely well-made movie. Like my friend and fellow cinephile Al said, nobody plays Seth Rogen like Seth Rogen. He's the same guy in every movie, and that's totally fine because he's hilarious and earnest and keeps you completely on his side the entire movie. The screenplay was written by Will Reiser, one of Rogen's best friends, as a semi-autobiographical account of his battle with cancer. Joseph Gordon Leavitt plays Adam, a stand-in for Reiser himself, and he plays it beautifully. The film's very personal, and very real. It's equal parts hilarious and poignant, and feels more like Garden State than 40-Year-Old-Virgin. The laughs are contextual and never played as anything but genuine. The tears may come, too, 'cause they sure did for me. I wasn't blubbering or anything, but there are some impactful moments in the third act that you don't need to have cancer to have affect you. If you've ever felt scared, alone, confused, or helpless, the main character's struggle to survive will resonate with you.

As I watched, I tried to figure out why it struck such a chord. To be sure, I've lost family and friends to cancer, and watched others struggle with the disease, but I've never experienced it as personally as the people in the story. All of a sudden a stark thought flashed through my head: I don't have health insurance, what would I do if this happened to me? The thought of piles of medical bills, or possibly lack of good treatment options, tightened my stomach. There are a lot of moments like that when you're unemployed. Some mundane detail of everyday life you used to take for granted sets your mind racing and your gut wrenching with anxiety.

That stray thought then dovetailed to an observation: being unemployed is a bit like having a terminal illness. Let's be clear. I'm not directly comparing the two, and I by no means wish to trivialize others' struggle with cancer and other diseases. I'm just noting a similarity to the experience.

You're in a kind of limbo, not knowing when or if you're going to pull through it. There's not much you can do other than go through the step by step and day to day. For illnesses, you go to your treatments, you go to support groups, you go to checkups, and you take your meds, all with the hope of getting better. When you're unemployed, you update your resume, apply to jobs, go to interviews (if you're lucky enough to get one), and go to networking events and job fairs all with the hope that you'll actually get a job.

When you're sick, the people around you sometimes don't know how to act, or maybe the fact that you're sick becomes the foremost thing on their mind and all they want to talk about. It's similar if you're unemployed. Family will constantly ask how the job hunt is going, making suggestions and telling you things they've heard about other people in your situation.

Both situations encounter the same empty, unknowing assurances and well-wishes. "You'll pull through." "Just stay positive, and stay focused." "It can only get better." How could "they" know anything? They have their health (or a job). They don't know that you're going to get better (or get a job). You feel scared. You feel alone. At times, you feel like there's no hope.

The title denotes the chances Adam has for survival. A 50% chance, as pointed out by Rogen's character, is still a really good chance. In today's economy, the same odds can't be laid on one's ability to land a job. I'm well educated, and well-spoken (or so I've been told). In almost three years, I've applied or otherwise inquired to a great number of jobs, and have yet to land steady, full-time employment.

Do I really have a better chance at beating cancer than landing a job? Seriously?

How depressing is that?

Oh well, at least I still get to go to matinee movies. One of the very few perks of being unemployed.

Go see 50/50, it was great. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll draw strange analogies to your life.