Author Archives: Kevin Hillman

About Kevin Hillman

Kevin Hillman works in television and is equally capable of discussing 19th century tax law and Pokemon battle tactics. He lives on Planet Coruscant with an Ewok named Moo.

bill-finger

Exclusive: Family of Batman’s uncredited co-creator speaks

Seventy-five years ago, an icon was created. A masked detective, stalking the cowardly and villainous lot of Gotham City, the Bat-Man was a new force for good, a hero for a nation facing a Great Depression, urban crime, and the prospect of a second World War.

Bob Kane, an artist for National Periodicals (the future DC Comics), was tasked with creating a new superhero following the success of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s Superman. Kane designed a blonde-haired, acrobatic man in a red jumpsuit and a domino mask. But before he brought the proposal back to National, Kane looked to his friend, Bill Finger, for advice.

Milton “Bill” Finger was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1914. An aspiring writer, Finger met Kane at a party and forged a friendship. When Kane approached Finger for advice, Finger was a shoe salesman, seeking a way to jumpstart his writing career.

Finger completely reworked Kane’s Bat-Man proposal, changing the color scheme and adding the famous cape and cowl. The high-flying adventurer of Kane’s became the brooding vigilante we know today thanks primarily to the contributions of Bill Finger.

Three-quarters of a century later, we celebrate the work of Kane and Finger in every corner of our culture. Batman movies have made nearly $4 billion worldwide, DC releases over a dozen comics linked to the Batman character every month, and the Fox Broadcasting Company will soon be premiering a new television series set in Bruce Wayne’s home city, titled Gotham.

All of these works include the statement: “Batman created by Bob Kane.” Finger, despite his contributions to the birth of the icon, receives no such honor. Now, over 40 years after his death, Finger’s family is looking to fix this injustice — not by stalking the shadows, but by bringing the facts into the light.

Athena Finger, a math professor in south Florida, is Bill’s only living grandchild, and she intends to set things right.

“I have been building up to this ‘coming out’ into the public,” Ms. Finger said in an exclusive interview with Curiata.com. “This was the right time to face the fans and address the issue of my grandfather and what can be done to rectify it. Changing history is what it’s all about.”

Born two years after her grandfather’s death, Ms. Finger is seeking a way to honor the man she never knew by getting him the co-creator credit he rightfully deserves.

“The true question now is what didn’t Bill contribute? He came up with all the defining characteristics of the story and characters,” Ms. Finger explained. “He added the color scheme, the cowl, the cape, the gloves, the naming of Gotham City, and most of our beloved villains.”

Still, the obstacles for the Finger family are immense. DC Comics and its parent company, Time Warner, continue to honor a deal made with Kane decades ago. In that arrangement, Kane signed away any ownership rights in favor of a creator credit.

Asked why Finger was unable to get the same deal, his granddaughter stated that she is unaware of him ever seeking out such credit. Ultimately, she said, “Bob [Kane] had better advice and money.”

According to Ms. Finger, it is the way people interpret the laws that is preventing change, but she isn’t about to give up the fight.

“We are exploring our options,” Ms. Finger said. “I am hoping to resolve this issue one way or another.”

Kane, who died in 1998, even stated his support for his old friend, writing in his autobiography: “I must admit that Bill never received the fame and recognition he deserved. He was an unsung hero … if I could go back 15 years, before he died, I’d like to say, ‘I’ll put your name on it now. You deserve it.'”

Despite the acrimony sometimes directed toward Kane by comic book fans, Ms. Finger was clear about the relationship between Kane and her family: “There are no hard feelings.”

Finger’s contributions are not limited to the Batman franchise either. In addition to having a hand in the creation of Bat-villains including the Joker, the Riddler, the Penguin, and more, Finger is also the co-creator of Wildcat and the original Green Lantern. His work extended to television and movies, and he even worked a bit for DC’s rival, Marvel.

But Finger’s legacy will forever be tied to the Caped Crusader, both in the minds of comic book fans and his own family.

“I have always known about the importance of my grandfather’s contributions to the Batman,” his granddaughter said. And, despite the problems with DC, Ms. Finger continues to enjoy the result of her grandfather’s great work.

“I do watch the movies and have started reading more comics lately,” Finger said. “I am curious about how [Ben Affleck] is going to portray the Bat.”

Ms. Finger will make sure others know her grandfather’s work as well. After all, Finger’s contributions helped to create an icon.

“I am awe-struck by the influence this mythos has had on the fans!” Ms. Finger said.

The injustice against a man so instrumental in the creation of an American mythology is finally gaining the attention it deserves. And Ms. Finger isn’t on this (caped) crusade alone.

Finger’s coining of the name of Gotham City has led to the creation of the latest of several Facebook groups dedicated to giving the man credit for his contributions. Ms. Finger offered her support for the goal of the group.

“I would love to see that,” she said.

The Cape Creator: A Tribute to Bat-Maker Bill Finger is an in-production, crowdfunded documentary that aims to honor the man who continues to go unrecognized by DC Comics. While its initial fundraising goal has already been reached, the organizers of the Kickstarter campaign are asking for additional support to allow for a longer, more in-depth movie.

Whether it is through documentaries, books, Facebook groups, or simply word of mouth, change must ultimately come through education.

“I want people to continue spreading the word about Bill and his connection to Batman,” Ms. Finger said.

For more information on Bill Finger, check out Marc Tyler Nobleman’s book Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman.

You can also join the fight for justice on Facebook:

The Cape Creator: A Tribute to Bill Finger, the Secret Co-Creator of Batman
Credit Bill Finger for Cocreating Batman and Naming Gotham
Bill Finger Appreciation Group

batman-superman-dc

In struggle with Superman, Batman must prevail

Everyone loves an underdog story. David versus Goliath is the most popular example, and it’s cited every time a team with a losing record manages to pull off a surprise victory. But the underdog story takes on a new element when both parties involved are popular heroes. It’s one thing for David, the clear “good guy” in the books of Samuel, to defeat Goliath, the representative of “evil paganism,” but it’s something completely different if David defeats Hercules.

So what happens when Batman, often the David fighting Goliaths such as Bane, Killer Croc, or Mr. Freeze, takes on the modern Hercules, Superman? Superman is a hero in his own right, often portrayed as an underdog in a battle with a cosmic threat, which he always manages to overcome. So how is it that anyone can expect an even greater underdog to defeat the Man of Steel?

With Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice hitting theaters in 2016, a lot of casual fans have been raising this question. After all, Superman is basically a god, while Batman is just a rich human with psychological issues. Superman can move a planet; Batman has no such superpowers. So how is it that we are expected to believe Batman has any chance in a fight with Superman?

Comic book fans know the answer. Batman always wins. Especially against Superman.

In the comic arcs The Dark Knight Returns, Hush, and Red Son, the Caped Crusader leaves the Man of Tomorrow lying after a pugilistic defeat. But how? And from a writing standpoint: why?

The reason Batman is so beloved by fans across the globe is that he is human. He is flawed but brilliant. His numerous psychoses make him a dangerous man, and his paranoia especially guarantees he is prepared for any contingency. The Dark Knight must even be prepared to bring down his god-like best friend when the man from Krypton becomes a threat to humanity.

Even within the fictional world of DC Comics, it is understood that no one but Batman can bring down the Man of Steel. Even ultra-powerful heroes Shazam, Wonder Woman, Captain Atom, and Green Lantern have tried and failed. Most interesting of all, it is Clark Kent himself who entrusts Bruce Wayne with the kryptonite that can stop him cold. Kent knows that, despite his psychological issues, Batman can be trusted to do the right thing if Superman were ever to step out of line.

There is a strange degree of respect and admiration between DC’s two pillars. Batman admires Superman’s sense of honor and duty, even though they are not traits the Dark Knight shares. Superman respects Batman’s mind and his drive to achieve the unachievable. They find a common bond in their respect for human life, above all. Despite the cataclysmic opposition they face, the two heroes — at least in mainline canon — do not kill. It is that respect for human life that causes Kent to trust Wayne above all others in case he were to ever go rogue. As shown in the Injustice comics, when Superman crosses the line and begins to kill in the name of justice, his worldview becomes skewed and only the Dark Knight can stop him.

Superman and Batman represent conflicting ideals and outlooks — and even different ideas of what a superhero is. If we assume a superhero must have powers above that of a normal human being, Wayne is no superhero. But Batman risks his life every night, often performing seemingly superhuman feats despite his limitations. It is his drive and will to change the world that make Batman super. Superman, on the other hand, is defined by his capacity to hold back. The Man of Steel lives in a world of paper. Steel and concrete are as easy to break for Superman as glass is to a normal human.

Batman is a pessimist, often seeing the worst in people, and always expecting it. He is paranoid, angry, and driven by a sense of vengeance. Superman is an optimist, sees the best in everyone, and is happy, trusting, and bound by a sense of duty. Superman is how America sees itself: naturally strong, overwhelmingly powerful, exceptional, idealistic, and representative of freedom and justice. Batman is what America really is: incredibly wealthy, willing to throw money around to get the job done, heavily armed in ridiculous technology, built by hard work, and constantly engaged in a never-ending war.

But Superman and Batman need each other. Batman’s spiteful attitude and cynicism need to be offset by Superman’s kindness, and Superman needs Batman to help set him straight when his head is in the clouds and when the answer to a problem requires more than just punching really hard and flying really fast.

Superman should be unbeatable, but it’s the Dark Knight who truly can’t be stopped. No matter the situation, Batman is prepared. In The Dark Knight Returns, an older Wayne is dead-set on continuing his mission even when President Reagan sends Superman to stop him. Batman represents the power of the human will to overcome even the steepest of odds to achieve a goal. Using everything at his disposal, Wayne is able to bring down the Man of Tomorrow.

Batman needs to beat Superman. It’s part of what makes the characters special. Superman is the most powerful being on the planet, and his stories are about how even stronger monsters push him to his known limits, only for Supes to find even greater strength within himself to bring down the destructive force. No matter how strong or indestructible the force is, Superman is able to rise above. It’s the idea perpetuated in the Independence Day movie: even the most powerful nation on planet Earth has to fight something even more powerful in the form of an alien invasion.

Batman, on the other hand, represents what really happened on America’s Independence Day: a true underdog, bold enough to take on the seemingly impossible task ahead of him. Batman is brash, bold, and seemingly fearless. When pitted against insurmountable odds, which happens more often than not, the Bat is ready — and he overcomes. The Dark Knight is the human being who fights against God. He may never defeat Darkseid in a fistfight, but Batman will still find a way to win. Wayne is the one obstacle that Kent can’t overcome, as he should be. It is humbling to know that the most powerful being in the galaxy can’t beat a simple human. Superman is boring if he defeats Batman. There is no drama in that.

Superman is the status quo. He represents corporate culture, the social ideal, and an impossible to achieve goal of perfection. Superman reminds us that those with power aren’t necessarily bad and can wield their power to achieve great change. Batman, despite being a capitalist juggernaut, is the opposition culture, the social truth, and the gritty, real world of flaws and problems. Yes, he was born wealthy, but he is defined by the struggles and adversity he faces in pursuit of a greater goal.

Batman defeats Superman to remind us that the voiceless can still beat the media conglomerates, that the meek can still topple the powerful, and that, in the end, even the mightiest institutions can be brought down by a well-organized opposition.

korra

Legend of Korra showcases versatility of animation

The idea that an adult male watches cartoons often provokes a good bit of laughter and social ostracism. It also raises a few eyebrows when that same adult male writes about 19th century Europe and the 1820s American political system. But it isn’t as strange as it seems, and actually makes a good bit of sense. A good cartoon can be just as thought-provoking as any show on AMC, and more often than not, the writing is better than anything that appears on the broadcast networks.

Ultimately, animation, like comics, is a medium, with its own unique potential that can be utilized to maximum effect. What a creator does with any medium determines whether or not a story is good. As a fellow contributor to Curiata.com likes to say, good writing is good writing, it doesn’t matter if it’s in a book or portrayed on a screen. The prejudice people have toward cartoons is based on the assumption that all cartoons are aimed at kids, or are using the cartoon medium to add to the joke of shocking humor for adult comedies like South Park. That is a painfully simple view that ignores all of the great cartoons released every year, particularly by the Japanese, which offer thought-provoking and imaginative takes on real questions.

Using a cartoon allows the storyteller unlimited creative freedom. Like comics, the visual aspect of the show is only limited by its creators’ imaginations. Unlike comics, cartoons can be made to illustrate epic, flowing action scenes and sprawling, panoramic shots of fictional worlds. Cartoons can then use these tremendous new worlds to tell us stories about our own, in ways that even the best movie director can’t. The right combination of inventive animation and meaningful writing can result in some of the best shows on television. Among these shows, which I enjoy just as much as Mad Men or Hell on Wheels, is The Legend of Korra.

The Legend of Korra is a sequel to the popular Nickelodeon show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Both Avatar and The Legend of Korra are about a world in which some of the population has the ability to manipulate or “bend” certain elements. Benders are only able to control one element, usually depending on what nation they belong to: Fire, Water, Earth, or Air. The Avatar is the only person in this world who can bend all four elements. This person acts as the bridge between the human and spirit worlds and is reincarnated after death in the way that the Dalai Lama is said to be. Korra is the next incarnation of the Avatar after Last Airbender’s protagonist, Aang.

Avatar was an incredibly well-written show that was aimed at a younger audience. When Korra was given the green light, the creators had to decide whether or not to continue aiming for the young demographic, or to follow the path of anime, which inspired the art style of Avatar, and age with its audience to produce a show targeting older viewers. The decision was made to create a show that can continue to appeal to new viewers while giving older fans more complex storylines containing allusions to politics, social justice, and world history.

The first season of The Legend of Korra reintroduces the audience to the world of the Avatar — greatly changed since the days of Aang’s adventures. The four warring nations have come to peace and a new government has formed in Republic City: a steampunk-esque city modeled after both feudal Japan and the United States in the 1920s, complete with radios, film reels, and crude automobiles. Fans of The Last Airbender can see the changes of the world in the last 70 years instantly. The city, which was founded, in part, by the previous Avatar, contains many of the problems of the modern metropolis. A constant battle exists between crime syndicates, which usually contain several element benders, and the police force, all of whom are a special breed of earth benders: metal benders. The result is a plethora of intense and unique scenes.

The show takes the premise of Avatar and places it in a modern context. In a realistic world, the police and the crime syndicates would obviously make use of bending abilities to further their goals, whether noble or sinister. But the realism of the new industrial era of Avatar isn’t limited to criminals. The show includes a social movement — one that begins with noble intentions but also takes a violent and aggressive turn.

Upon entering Republic City, Korra is met with resentment from a group of marginalized people calling themselves the Equalists. The Equalists address an issue that goes largely ignored through Aang’s journey. Only some people on this planet have the ability to bend the elements. How does that affect the common people? What prevents benders from using their powers to subjugate the masses? In fact, the world of Avatar often shows that benders are in positions of power. Does their world actually operate under an oligarchy of the bending class?

The Equalists are a group of radicals, led by the enigmatic Amon, that demands the equality of all persons. Amon, who wears a mask to hide scars supposedly given to him by a fire bender, has the ability to take away a bender’s abilities — a power that had only been seen once before, from Avatar Aang. Amon’s ability and his uncanny knack for manipulating the masses gives him immense power and makes him a great threat to the status quo of Republic City and the Avatar.

Amon argues something reasonable but offers an answer that goes beyond what may be morally acceptable. The Equalists believe it to be unfair that only a select few have the ability to manipulate the elements. We can understand their feelings on this issue, but what right do the disgruntled have to take away a gift that has been given to others? Amon also uses the story of a single fire bender to propagate the idea that all benders are naturally a threat to the good, freedom-loving folks of Republic City. It’s Demagogue 101 — determine an “other,” attribute terrible qualities to them, use a single instance of truth to give your claims credibility, and appeal to the base prejudice in the people. By telling them that he will be their guide and their savior, Amon uses real feelings of powerlessness in others to empower himself.

The Equalists were also used as an “other” to further the goals of Republic City councilman Tarrlok, a water bender. Tarrlok’s lust for power rather than any desire to do good clearly colors his political decisions. This often puts him at odds with Aang’s son, Tenzin, also on the council, who seems to subscribe to the philosophy of noblesse oblige. As someone who was born into a position of importance, Tenzin sees his status as both a burden and a gift that must be used to help others in the world. He uses this philosophy to positively influence Korra to do the same. Korra may not have asked for her status, but she should use it as well as she can to help the less powerful.

Korra’s sense of social justice is important to her development as a character. As the Avatar, she is the embodiment of a world of privilege by birth. The entire society is centered around her. But Korra’s parents are simple people from the southern water tribe. Being the Avatar has made her arrogant, but she is still human and, ultimately, she believes in fairness.

The Equalists challenge her outlook on the world. Perhaps it is unfair that a select few have been given such great gifts while others have to work much harder to find relevance in life. But the Equalists’ philosophy drives them to terrorism. Amon uses his highly trained forces and electrified weaponry to make theatrical displays of power against benders, and the Avatar in particular. Korra and her friends are thus put to the test against these skilled fighters who prove that you don’t need to be a bender to be a force in their world.

Tarrlok, like any good power-seeker, uses the terrorist actions of Amon and the Equalists to further his own agenda. Average people protesting the decisions of the City Council are put under arrest by Tarrlok, who labels the protesters Equalists. While not taken to that extreme, Tarrlok’s actions bring to mind the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and the idea that simply labeling someone a terrorist or enemy combatant removes any rights they have as human beings to be fairly tried.

Korra has to navigate this world of political intrigue and social upheaval while also protecting herself from Amon’s personal vendetta, leaving her completely uncertain who she can trust. And she must do this while her own morals are being put to the test. Korra, though a proponent of social justice, is quick to fight and reacts violently to people she views as evil. It is the duty of Tenzin, who was raised by the much more pacifist Aang, to show Korra the better path: There are men out there who would harm innocents for personal gain, or for a grander vision. We can’t be quick to pull the trigger, and we should evolve with the changing times. Those with whom we disagree don’t deserve violence. They should be heard and understood. Only when all other options have been exhausted should one resort to physicality.

The people of Republic City have a reason to be disgruntled. Despite the promise of its name, the ruling class of the City are hardly representative of the population. The council is made up of a representative from each of the elemental nations. Tenzin, whose nation consisted of only his own family, held equal power with the Earth councilmen, whose people were large and expansive. The Legend of Korra’s first season shows us how this system can change into something more democratic, as the season ends with the election of Republic City’s first president. Moving into a more presidential system shows how political movements can make a difference. But it was done through peace and negotiation, not brought on because of the violent actions of a few terrorists.

Despite its influence from Japanese art and storytelling, The Legend of Korra is ultimately a work of strong American allegory. It shows us the good and the bad with democratic systems, focusing on the problems that come with rapid progress and social change. And it does it all in a way that is eye-catching, interesting, and appeals to both children and adults. It is a show aimed at kids that still challenges adults. Yes, it is a cartoon, and it is one that I am proud to enjoy.

nationalism

Nationalism, not just killing of Ferdinand, sparked WWI

“Patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
— George Bernard Shaw

With World Cup fever overtaking the globe, it is interesting to see the rise of patriotism in people, including me, who rarely go about flag-waving and chanting “U-S-A.” It’s an interesting look into who we are as people and a remnant of something tribal within us. But while patriotism and nationalism can be great and honorable things at times, it also has a negative side — one which has caused some of the greatest mass slaughters in human history.

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist. What followed was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, with over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded.

In a world in which the United States sees far fewer casualties despite being perpetually at war, the idea that 16 million people could march to their deaths in a span of four years is simply unfathomable. But the reasons for which so many fought and died are still very much a part of our world. And while I am optimistic enough to hope it won’t happen again in my lifetime, I am not so naive as to believe it can’t happen.

The Great War in 1914 did not simply begin because of an assassination of an Austro-Hungarian royal. The archduke’s killing was just the final spark that set off the dynamite. The fuse had been burning for the previous 100 years, and while the flame had been doused at times, Ferdinand’s death ensured the fuse would be lit again with a flamethrower.

The story of World War I is not just the story of an assassination and entangling alliances. It is the story of the overwhelming power of nationalism — of the belief in national self-rule, of the belief in British exceptionalism, of the belief in American ideals and the inevitable triumph of democracy. In short, millions died because they believed their nations stood for something greater, and they were willing to fight for that.

The story begins in the 18th century, when a little-known soldier from Virginia named George Washington got into a scrap with French soldiers in what today is called Pittsburgh. The actions started the French and Indian War, which ended with Great Britain in control of vast new territories in Canada but in substantial debt. The Brits asked their American colonies to pay more in taxes, which sparked a long debate about the right of a free people to choose their own representatives. It ended with a war.

In declaring themselves free, however, the American colonists also declared that “all men were created equal.” The American cause spread to France, and soon, the French overthrew their own government and proclaimed liberty, equality, and fraternity. French nationalism became the new order of the day. No longer was a citizen identified as Corsican or Norman or Parisian — he was simply a Frenchman. The French Revolution, despite its high ideals, ended with the installation of a new emperor: Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon spent the next few years conquering much of the European continent, and despite the fact that he was now a French monarch, he spread the ideals of the French Revolution. Napoleon created small républiques based on national identity, including the Kingdom of Italy, the Duchy of Warsaw, and the Confederation of the Rhine. For the first time, many of these peoples were coming to terms with the idea of ruling over themselves like the Americans and the French. The idea of nationalism came into vogue.

Most of these new nations were split up following Napoleon’s defeat and the Congress of Vienna. Reactionary forces were determined to maintain the status quo. That meant returning nations to their former masters and reinstalling the king of France. An example could not be set that it was OK to overthrow a monarch.

The Congress of Vienna’s goal was to maintain what they called the Balance of Power. Similar to the philosophy which kept world powers in a Cold War for half a century, the Balance of Power philosophy stated that no nation on the European continent should gain enough power to be able to crush the other Great Powers. The Great Powers, which included Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France, would act as checks on one another, with their strength being so equal that war between the Powers would be too deadly and costly. As an added bonus, the Powers would be expected to help one another out when any pesky ethnic minorities decided they wanted to pass their own laws.

That agreement came in handy in 1848, when numerous nationalistic groups tried to spark their own revolutions. The French were successful, ending the French monarchy and creating the French Second Republic, which was headed by Louis-Napoléon, who, of course, became emperor a few years later. Other nations were less successful.

The Austrian Empire faced the greatest threat from nationalism. The empire included Austrians, Hungarians, Slovenes, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Croats, Romanians, Serbs, and Italians. Each ethnic group included those who hoped to either achieve autonomy or independence. Further complicating things were the Germans, who, like the Italians, were seeking national unification.

Within the next two and a half decades, both Italy and Germany would achieve their nationalist goals through war, bribery, and realpolitik. The unification stories of both nations were intertwined and helped to set the stage for World War I.

Italian unification began with the Congress of Vienna and ended in 1871, when Rome was named the capital of the united Italy. Rome was taken by the Kingdom of Italy in a victory against the Papal States when Louis-Napoléon, now known as Napoleon III, had to remove troops so that they could be used in a fight with Prussia. Italian unification set off a wave in Europe and created a sixth Great Power, offsetting the balance that was created in Vienna.

Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was no nationalist, but he understood power and understood how to manipulate the population. By provoking a war with Napoleon III and the Second French Empire, Bismarck knew he would be able to persuade the smaller German states to side with their brother countries. The Franco-Prussian War began and quickly ended with France’s humiliation. In the end, Napoleon III was removed from power, Alsace-Lorraine was ceded to Prussia, and the German states united under Prussia’s King Wilhelm to form the first German Empire. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine wounded France’s pride, and the country was determined to win the rematch, whenever that day came. The unification of Germany also offset Europe’s Balance of Power, upsetting Great Britain, which began an arms race with the Germans.

German unification was technically not complete, however. The Austrians were also a Germanic people, but as rulers of their own empire, which included many belligerent ethnic minorities, they had no desire to promote the nationalism that was making Germany strong. Still, their shared desire to avoid war with Russia led to the Dual Alliance of 1879.

Austria in the beginning of the 20th century was in the midst of political turmoil driven by nationalism. In 1882, Serbia proclaimed its independence from the Ottoman Empire, which, like the Austrian Empire, contained many disparate ethnic groups. Ethnic Serbs in Austria, as well as other Slavic peoples, desired to be rid of their Austrian overlords and wished to unite with their brother country. Austrian leadership was torn on how to handle Serbia, with Franz Ferdinand, ironically, maintaining a dovish stance toward the country. The biggest reason for Austria to stay out of Serbia, however, was that Russia considered itself to be the protector of this smaller Slavic country.

And thus the stage was fully set for a World War. Yugoslav nationalists, including Bosnians and Serbs, were sick of being dictated to by the Austrian aristocracy and the Congress of Vienna. A small group of militants chose to do as Washington would do and fight for their freedom. Ironically, they killed their best ally in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the aging monarch took action against a country that had been a thorn in his side.

By attempting to crush Serbia, Austria provoked Russia, which stirred German nationalism into a frenzy, causing the young empire to mobilize for war. Germany went to war again with France, which was looking for an excuse for a rematch to take back Alsace-Lorraine. France, which was yet again a Republic, had sided with the other prominent republic in Europe, Great Britain, in a Triple Entente with Russia. Thus, German aggression provoked Great Britain and Russia, which was already involved to protect Serbia. Oh, and Germany then signed a pact with the Ottoman Empire in the midst of this, bringing the dying empire of the east into the battle as well.

But what about the United States? Well, American nationalism has always been a bit different than that of their European counterparts. Even in the early 20th century, American ethnicity was not really clear-cut. Immigrants had come to the United States from all over Europe and were becoming part of a nation that already included immigrants from China and the descendants of slaves from Africa. American identity became less about a common history and more about a common philosophy.

That philosophy was democracy, and even though it’s debatable how truly democratic the United States has been at various points in history, it was something the country believed was worth fighting for. Thus, with France and Great Britain being pushed by the empires of Europe, it became necessary as an extension of American nationalism to join the war. After all, the world had to be made safe for democracy.

Sound familiar? Remember this the next time you are watching the World Cup and cheering for the U.S. of A., while CNN is explaining why we may be entering Iraq for the third time in as many decades. Nationalism can be a great thing, but it may also lead to the downfall of society. Appreciate what makes us different, but don’t let it divide us to the point of destruction. After all, the end of humanity is in no one’s national interest.

mitb-ladder

WWE spotlights ladder match, pro wrestling’s spectacle

It’s summer blockbuster season again. We fans are being treated to the greatest in action spectacles and violence — and it’s pretty great. But action-adventure epics aren’t limited to the silver screen, and Transformers won’t be the only thing I’ll be watching this weekend that’s full of car wrecks.

WWE Money in the Bank, the leading professional wrestling company’s annual demolition derby, airs Sunday on pay-per-view and WWE Network. The event will feature two multiple-person ladder matches with huge prizes — the WWE World Heavyweight Championship is on the line in one, and an opportunity to fight for that championship at any time is up for grabs in the other. Within the context of sports entertainment storylines, there are few matches that hold more importance to a pro wrestler’s career.

But the Money in the Bank ladder match is just the newest incarnation of a match that dates back over 40 years and has featured some of the greatest action ever seen on screen — all without the benefit of special effects. The ladder match, quite simply, is the greatest gimmick match in professional wrestling. And if you aren’t a pro wrestling fan, I promise: even you will be entertained by a good ladder match. The best of the ladder matches have included some of the most absurd and risky maneuvers ever performed by any human being for any reason. See exhibit A:

In case you don’t have time to click on that video, the clip is of one man tackling another man in the middle of the air. There are about a million ways this could have gone wrong, yet both men were able to get up and walk away after the match. Neither practiced this stunt, and neither got paid extra for coming so close to death. The two performers simply wanted to put on a show that would get them attention, even if that meant risking their lives. And ultimately, it worked: both men are former WWE World Champions — something that only about 40 men in the last 50 years can say.

The ladder match, however, did not begin as a smash-mouth, high-octane, Michael Bay movie in a 20′-by-20′ ring. Its origins are much more humble and date back to 1972, when jumping through tables was unheard of in the sport of pro wrestling.

WWE fans are often told that the first ladder match ever took place in 1994 at WrestleMania X. That, however, is untrue. The match wasn’t even the first in WWE history.

The first recorded ladder match was held two decades earlier in a company called Stampede Wrestling. Stampede ran out of Calgary, Canada, and was known for its innovation and use of international pro wrestling stars. In September 1972, Stampede tried out a new gimmick which saw two men compete to climb a ladder to the ceiling, where a wad of cash was awaiting the victor. The match saw Dan Kroffat defeat Tor Kamata.

Stampede didn’t revisit the match again for seven years, when it pitted Junkyard Dog against Jake “The Snake” Roberts. The match, which can be seen on WWE’s first ladder match DVD compilation, is pretty unbearable to watch and looks nothing like the violent metal-fest we know and love today.

Stampede Wrestling was run by legendary professional wrestling promoter and patriarch Stu Hart, who often used his many sons as top stars in the territory. His son Bret, whom you may have heard of, competed in another early ladder match in Stampede against Bad News Brown.

Bret “The Hitman” Hart, as you may know, later joined Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Federation (today’s WWE) and suggested that the company adopt the ladder match stipulation. McMahon, who had never heard of such a thing, eventually agreed to let Bret show him what a ladder match was all about. The Hitman was given the opportunity to influence McMahon at an untelevised house show in Portland, Maine, against an opponent of his choosing: Shawn Michaels.

The Michaels/Hart match was more in line with the ladder match of today, but with the match never airing on television, it was not able to gain the attention of pro wrestling fans around the world. Incidentally, it didn’t capture the attention of McMahon either. According to Hart, McMahon never actually bothered to watch WWE’s first ladder match.

With Michaels’ experience with Hart tucked away in his mind, “The Heartbreak Kid” suggested the match to McMahon again, but on a very different stage. Michaels, who had been suspended from the company for failing a drug test, was stripped of the Intercontinental Championship. While he was away, Razor Ramon was named the new champion, but when Michaels returned, he still had the old belt. And so, the first nationally televised ladder match was booked for the biggest show of the year, WrestleMania X, with both Intercontinental titles hanging above the ring, waiting for one man to capture the undisputed championship.

“Still, the spectacle is one of the best in the world, and fans love the matches for a reason. The ladder match has a storied history in professional wrestling, and will continue to be the maker of superstars.”

Michaels and Ramon put on a spectacular show, full of violence and risk-taking unheard of in WWF in the early 1990s. When Michaels dove off the ladder onto Ramon, he cemented his legacy in the minds of professional wrestling fans.

The match changed the direction of pro wrestling from a display of mat skills and a competition of strong men to an entertainment form defined by spectacle and risk. Sure, muscle heads continue to have their place in WWE, but smaller, more athletically gifted pro wrestlers are no longer ignored completely in favor of bodybuilders. In fact, Michaels set the stage for the ladder match to be the professional springboard for smaller pro wrestlers, paving the way for men like Rob Van Dam, Jeff Hardy, and Eddie Guerrero.

The WrestleMania ladder match set the standard by which all subsequent ladder matches would be judged. And in the late 90s and early 2000s, three tag teams raised the bar to a height that can never again be reached — and probably shouldn’t be.

In 1999, The Hardy Boyz faced Edge and Christian in the first-ever tag-team ladder match. The Hardys, who had been inspired by Michaels and considered the WrestleMania X contest among the best matches of all time, set out to prove what they could do with the match that HBK made famous. Edge and Christian, still new to WWE at the time, were more than willing to do their parts to make the tag team match stand out. The four competitors tore down the house with innovative violence and spectacular, suicidal maneuvers. All four men received a standing ovation and caught the attention of the decision makers in WWE.

Six months after their ladder match encounter, the two teams were joined by The Dudley Boyz in a three-team ladder match, proceeding to steal the show at WrestleMania 2000. With this match and their Tables, Ladders, and Chairs rematches at SummerSlam and the next year’s WrestleMania X-Seven, the three teams cemented their statuses as pro wrestling legends with some of the most risky, incredible performances ever seen from any professional athletes.

Unfortunately, this type of match is incredibly dangerous, and the spectacles that took place featuring those six men can never — and should never — be duplicated. The men involved took too many risks and raised the bar too high. In 2011, Edge, who has competed in dozens of ladder matches, had to retire while seemingly in his prime due to neck damage sustained after years of brutal competition.

In order to maintain the aura of the ladder match, WWE has made sure to use multiple athletes in most of these contests so the risks can be dispersed. While singles matches still take place with a ladder, the vast majority of ladder matches today are Money-in-the-Bank style, featuring between six and 10 competitors.

Still, some of the risks taken in Money in the Bank matches take a fan’s breath away. Shelton Benjamin in particular has used the Money in the Bank match to leave his legacy in the world of professional wrestling. Some of his more daring moves will be seen on highlight reels for decades:

We all know professional wrestling features predetermined outcomes and scripted segments, but much of what the performers do in the ring is determined by those involved. Many of the moves hurt. But the ladder match brought to the mainstream a more painful ring style that defined pro wrestling in the 90s and can still be seen today. We have to remember that the performers are people, too, and that we can’t have the bloodlust we had in the 90s if we expect our favorite pro wrestlers to live long and healthy lives.

Still, the spectacle is one of the best in the world, and fans love the matches for a reason. The ladder match has a storied history in professional wrestling, and will continue to be the maker of superstars.

WWE Money in the Bank has raised the status of the ladder match to the main event. The match often displays the talent of WWE’s next top stars and acts as a proving ground for those who want the world’s attention. Who will rise to the occasion this Sunday? I don’t know about you, but I look forward to finding out.

vanburen

Democratizing American English has been OK for years

This week’s special Lingwizardry is brought to you by our resident historian, Kevin Hillman.

Every year, Merriam-Webster adds new words to the dictionary. And every year, we bemoan the addition of lingo like “LOL” and “sext” to our official lexicon, as though it is indicative of the downfall of society. But these words, primarily created in the Internet age, are part of a long American tradition.

See, unlike the French, who have an Académie that regulates their language, English, particularly American English, has a long tradition of democratization. So while it is easy to whine about kids and their PDAs and typewriters ruining good ol’ American words, remember that it is nothing new, and an evolving language is really OK.

Actually, “OK” is the perfect example of how Americans have democratized the English language in the past 200 years. “OK” sounds like a word that would have been invented in the Internet age alongside LOL and WTF. The word, in all its simplicity, actually predates Internet lingo by about 155 years. It sounds like an acronym and looks like one, too, but ask people what “OK” stands for and very few could give you the answer. Most signs point to “OK” meaning “orl korrekt,” which you might recognize as making no damn sense whatsoever.

It turns out that American men and women of the 1830s actually had a sense of humor, and even though they were among the few people in the world who were actually literate, they liked to misspell words and make weird acronyms. You might recognize this as common practice for anyone who’s ever sent a text message. “Orl korrekt” was a purposely corrupted spelling of “all correct” and took on its meaning, and, as was hip at the time, was then shortened to simply “OK”.

This democratization of language was a direct result of the Declaration of Independence. Following the American Revolution, common folk began to see themselves as human beings on an equal footing with their supposed social betters. The American aristocracy (Greek aristokratía, from aristos, “excellent,” and kratos, “power”) certainly didn’t love the idea, but it came with the territory after claiming that “all men were created equal.”

The first and second generations born after the American Revolution had taken its purported goals to heart and began democratizing institutions everywhere. This democratization led to the drastic divisions in the Protestant Church, which created several new sects due to popular differences in interpretation. Politics became less about deferring to the greater sort and more about selecting the guy who agreed with your views — or bought you beer.

It also affected much of our language, with Mister, Madame, and other honorifics coming into common use for common folks, as opposed to being reserved for the upper class. Democratization of the English language meant the spelling of some words was changed to align with more common usage, a practice that exists to this day and can cause a lot of confusion.

Even the word “democracy” itself took on new meaning — or, at least, new connotations. To the Founding Generation, “democracy” (Greek dēmokratía, from dēmos, “people,” and kratos, “power”) was a dirty word, used in disgust and largely viewed as describing “mob rule.” Many of the founders of the American Republic thought the common people just weren’t capable of ruling themselves, which is the reason we have a Senate and an Electoral College and don’t pass laws based on referendum the way the Athenians did things.

The change in tone for “democracy” came at about the same time as the rise of “OK” — and largely thanks to the same man. “OK” was perhaps the biggest product of American linguistic democracy. An abbreviation and misspelling fad in 19th-century Boston created the most commonly understood word in the 21st-century world. Its simplicity and catchiness gave it tremendous spreading power. But “OK” never would have spread far outside of the working classes of Boston if not for the most important president in the history of the United States.

Of course, I’m speaking of Martin Van Buren. The eighth president of the United States and key founder of the Democratic Party began his life in Kinderhook (Dutch for “children’s corner”), New York, and was of Dutch ancestry. The first “ethnic” President, Van Buren actually spoke Dutch as his primary language. Van Buren was also the first president born after the American Revolution, making him the first president born a U.S. citizen — and making the “This is America, so speak English,” argument look a bit absurd. Van Buren, the son of a tavern keeper, had no love for the aristocratic ways of Old America and was a strong advocate for giving a voice to the common man.

In the early 1820s, Americans believed party politics was dead. The Democratic-Republicans of Thomas Jefferson were the only viable political party left, having defeated the Federalists soundly and frequently. With the election of 1824, however, that all changed. With four different candidates on the presidential ballot, no man was able to secure a victory, and the race was thrown into the House of Representatives, which awarded the election to John Quincy Adams. Popular favorite Andrew Jackson was furious, and Van Buren, with his brilliant political mind, saw an opportunity.

The country was shifting from the days of the Revolution, which romanticized the ancient Roman Republic and the ideals of disinterested leadership, to the second generation of American political leaders and an affinity for all things Ancient Greece. Hence the shift in popularity of the word “democracy” as well as its philosophy, which was associated with Ancient Greek government.

Van Buren understood the shift better than anyone. After the election of 1824, Van Buren began assembling an opposition party against Adams by using the prestige and stature of Old Hickory. Jackson, viewed as a hero of the people, was able to garner support from all around the country, as common men viewed his rough nature and gruff attitude as proof that he was just like them. His immense popularity led to Adams leaving after only one term in office, as Jackson, the people’s chosen representative, was elected in 1828, establishing the Democratic Party as a force to be reckoned with.

Van Buren had built a party from the ground up and changed the way we look at politics — and our own language. Van Buren, in the tradition of Jefferson, changed the connotation of “democracy” into a positive one. The first generation born under the Declaration of Independence was seeing to its promise of equality for all — err, all white men anyway.

1836 was Van Buren’s year to take up his party’s mantle. He took on the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison, and was victorious in a landslide, largely thanks to the popularity of the incumbent. In 1840, however, Van Buren was not so lucky.

Van Buren’s Democratic Party and the Whigs who opposed it established what we would consider the modern political system. The elections were no longer about issues but more about appealing to the masses with slogans and sound bites. Harrison’s Whig Party ran with “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” in reference to Harrison’s military victory in the Battle of Tippecanoe and his running mate, John Tyler. They also perpetuated the myth that Harrison, like Van Buren and Jackson, was a common man’s hero, born in a log cabin on the frontier — which he certainly was not. Harrison was Virginia aristocracy, born in a comfortable mansion, with a father who signed the Declaration of Independence. The log cabin image, however, caught on.

Van Buren, despite being the son of a tavern keeper, was portrayed as a wealthy, aristocratic snob. You may recognize these tactics, as they still exist to this day, with the best example being George W. Bush, a Yale legacy and son of a president convincing the country that he was a Washington outsider and a cowboy.

To combat the Whigs, the Democrats began calling Van Buren “Old Kinderhook,” or “OK” for short, in reference to his hometown. “Old Kinderhook” used the nickname to gather grassroots support, but was ultimately defeated by Tippecanoe and his Log Cabin campaign, proving that perception is everything when it comes to politics.

On the bright side, the race greatly popularized the use of the word “OK”, with it reaching all corners of a country which had only a president and a common language uniting it. The introduction of the telegraph and the railroad, which signaled the birth of mass communication, meant that “OK” would spread across the nation, just like the Internet did for “LOL” and “sext”.

In time, our language further evolved, with “OK” now being written as “okay” in most of our conversations.

Today, we honor Old Kinderhook’s memory by invoking his nickname in every single conversation we have. So remember, Old Kinderhook may not make your list of top ten U.S. presidents — unless you rank them in chronological order — but Martin Van Buren did popularize the most American of words, and that is pretty OK.

transformers

Transformers trilogy can be blockbuster litmus test

There is a tendency among film critics to scoff at blockbusters, action flicks, and movies with copious amounts of CGI. They complain at the direction Hollywood has been taking, which sees more and more action-heavy movies each year. But their complaints are misplaced, and at times, seem a bit snobbish to movie fans like me, who love Oscar winners and blockbusters with equal passion.

Movies such as Lincoln, Schindler’s List, and Good Will Hunting tell tremendous stories about history or the human condition and allow us to look inward. But movies heavy with special effects and action aren’t necessarily bad movies. Often, they allow us to look outward, challenging our ideas of right and wrong in new and powerful ways, while pushing us to think of where we could be and where we could go. Others just offer us unique stories which look incredible in IMAX 3D.

There are movies, however, which deserve their criticism. They are films that ignore basic storytelling, choosing instead to focus only on action, violence, and explosions.

The first Transformers trilogy offers a good example of both types of big-budget blockbusters. Transformers has long been used by film critics as the example of everything wrong with Hollywood today, but I am inclined to disagree in two out of three cases. Transformers 1 and Transformers 3 both tell good stories with heart and humor, while Transformers 2 falls into the same trap as some of the less popular action-heavy movies.

So what is it that Transformers 1 and 3 got right? It is important to remember that a movie should be judged for what it is and not what it isn’t. The Transformers movies were never intended to earn an Academy Award for Best Picture. They weren’t made to question the human condition, and they weren’t made to raise awareness of a disease or illness. The Transformers movies were meant to bring children of the ’80s and ’90s back to their childhoods in ways that would still appeal to their adult sensibilities. They were made to be fun and to push the boundaries of what computer animation could do. In these ways, the Transformers movies were very successful.

Fans of the 1980s cartoon show were thrilled when the first movie began and the voice of the original Optimus Prime, Peter Cullen, could be heard again. They were fascinated by a movie that honored their childhood fantasy without talking down to them. And people new to the franchise got to enjoy watching high-octane battles and explosions in a simple good versus evil story. The movie was escapism at its best.

But there are plenty of escapist movies out there that fail the test of a good movie, including Transformers 2. So why is it that I feel the first and third succeeded where the second failed? Put simply, there is a fair way to measure blockbuster films within the range of what can be expected. Look at the good blockbuster movies: Star Wars, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Winter Soldier. What stands out about these movies as opposed to the bad blockbuster films?

The late Roger Ebert put it this way: “The very best films in this genre, like Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, had compelling characters, depended on strong human performances, told great stories, and skillfully integrated the live-action and the CGI.”

Man of Steel, Godzilla, and Transformers 2 lack what all movies need: heart. The characters are cliched, with only minimal development. Transformers 1 and 3 have heart. Yes, Shia LeBeouf is annoying. Yes, Megan Fox is not the best actor. Yes, the explosions and battles are ridiculous. And yes, Michael Bay is probably a misogynist. But these movies took time to get to the action-heavy payoffs and built up the relationships and personalities of the characters first.

The slow buildup to the big action scene is a great idea, but it requires characters who can carry the story while we wait. Our concern for these characters then increases our interest in the big payoff, because we care about their safety. In poor blockbusters, like Man of Steel and Godzilla, we are given one-dimensional characters while waiting two hours for the big payoff in which an entire city is leveled with little concern for the humans who died.

Transformers 2 lacks the discipline of its predecessor and falls into another common trap of the blockbuster. Revenge of the Fallen cost an exorbitant amount of money and spent all of it on explosions and destruction, without any sense of pacing or character development. It gives away too much action and keeps the big scenes from feeling special. It also fails to live up to the expectations of a good movie in a plethora of other ways.

The first movie was about first contact with heroic and not-so-heroic alien races who were bringing their war to Earth, but it was also about a boy and his car — and a boy trying to score with a girl who was way out of his league. We can relate to Sam Witwicky, who is seen as a slacker in school and a loser to most people. He is the everyman who rises to the occasion and saves the Earth.

But what is the plot of Transformers 2? Robots are killing each other and Sam is afraid to tell his smoking-hot girlfriend that he loves her. Sure, he’s starting college, but his personal difficulties are hardly even addressed in the movie.

The movie instead plods along with poorly designed robots continually propositioning Fox, while we have to see robot testicles and, at times, pretty blatant racism. It’s Bay at his worst, relying far too heavily on the robots and explosions while lacking the heart that makes the other films so fun.

Transformers 1 and 3 do things right by starting in reality and slowly building to the absurd. They start by showing the problems of the young Sam, whose world is about to be shaken. He faces the same difficulties that most young men face — problems in school, trying to impress a pretty girl, troubles finding a job, and more. It just so happens that his new car turns out to be a sentient alien robot.

And that’s what the movies do so well: they take this absurd concept that was created specifically to sell toys and make it at least somewhat believable, not to mention fun to watch, just like when we were children who found the cartoons so fascinating. The movies will never be in contention for any acting awards, but they are fun, decent movies for the audience that loves to see giant robot fights.

Going forward, before Hollywood invests millions of dollars into a movie, it should use the Transformers films as a litmus test. Build to the big moment, like Godzilla did, but make the human characters compelling so that we can enjoy the ride, like Godzilla was unable to do. Don’t sacrifice story for spectacle, like Transformers 2, but make sure the spectacle holds even more power, because we care about the characters, like in Transformers 3. Explosions and good CGI may guarantee you a triple, but why settle for that when you can hit a homerun?

injustice

Superheroes approach killing from differing philosophies

Superheroes, whether in comics, movies, or animated television shows, make up our modern mythology. Like the mythology of the ancients, the stories we tell represent our greatest hopes, fears, and ideals. Then what does it say about us when our heroes kill?

Is there anything wrong with Superman killing General Zod to protect an innocent family? Does Wolverine’s use of deadly force to stop mass murderers make him any less heroic than Batman? These questions, though applied to fictional characters, hold great insights into who we are in the era of the drone and preemptive war.

The conflict is one of differing philosophies. Opponents of the death penalty and drone strikes share a philosophical mindset with some of our greatest fictional characters. These heroes, like Batman, Spider-Man, and Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender, are famous practitioners of deontology, a philosophy that states that actions themselves, regardless of consequences, have an intrinsic moral value. Under deontology, stealing is wrong whether it is for personal gain or to feed your family, and killing is morally reprehensible even if it is done to save the lives of millions.

Some of the strongest heroes in fiction, including Superman and Goku from Dragon Ball Z, try their hardest to maintain this philosophy, but have occasionally made the difficult decision to do the unthinkable when circumstances have dictated. Goku, for example, gave his antagonist, Frieza, numerous opportunities to leave with his life, but the Super Saiyan was left no choice but to fire back at the monster in self-defense.

Some heroes find the morality of killing dangerous men to be much less morally ambiguous. These heroes practice the philosophy of utilitarianism, which states that the moral value of an action is directly linked to its consequences. Therefore, if killing the Phoenix saves the lives of thousands or millions of innocent people, doing so is the morally correct decision. Wolverine, who did kill Phoenix in X3, is perhaps the most obvious example, but other heroes who practice utilitarianism include such squeaky clean characters as the Power Rangers and the Jedi.

Spider-Man’s origin story offers a perfect example of the conflict between deontology and utilitarianism. When a robber passes by Peter Parker, he is faced with a moral decision. Deontology dictates that Peter stop the thief. Stealing is, itself, a moral wrong, and Peter, possessing the power necessary to easily stop him, should have. He didn’t, and the decision had dire consequences. Utilitarianism states that not stopping the thief only became wrong when it later led to the death of Peter’s Uncle Ben. By not apprehending the man, Peter made the wrong moral decision under both utilitarianism and deontology.

But does the equation change when the stakes are raised? When Peter defeats his enemies, such as Green Goblin, he hands them off to the authorities, where they are then expected to go through the legal process. Should Peter have killed these villains instead? Under the American legal system, we expect citizens to only use lethal force as a last resort. And under deontological reasoning, killing is always wrong. But these villains are left with the ability to escape custody and further harm civilians. In one of the most famous examples, Green Goblin, who Spider-Man had refused to kill in the past, ended the life of Peter’s girlfriend, Gwen Stacy. The utilitarian philosopher would then argue that Peter’s refusal to kill the Goblin was wrong, because it led to Gwen’s death.

Under deontology, Spider-Man can’t be held responsible for the blood on the Goblin’s hands. Using the same philosophy, Batman also can’t be blamed for Joker’s murder of the second Robin, Jason Todd, or his crippling of Barbara Gordon. Batman is defined by his refusal to kill, even under the most extenuating circumstances. As shown in the animated movie Under the Red Hood, when forced to choose between saving the life of the Joker and killing the Red Hood, Batman found a third way by stopping Red Hood’s firearm, ironically saving the man who caused so much grief.

Letting someone die, not just killing, was a moral wrong in Bruce Wayne’s mind, and Batman could not let that happen, even though Red Hood’s arguments about the Joker were all true. Thousands died at the hands of the Joker, and because of his insanity, the legal system would never put him to death. According to Red Hood, Batman had a moral obligation to save the lives of the Joker’s future victims by killing the mad man when he had the chance. By not doing so, the blood of the Clown Prince of Crime was on the hands of the Caped Crusader.

Batman’s refusal to kill has long been the basis for his unlikely friendship with the Man of Tomorrow, even if Zack Snyder and David Goyer completely missed that. Superman, despite having the power of a god, has refused for most of his 75-year history to kill even the most dangerous of villains. The few times in which he behaved differently have been so rare that they either were used to reshape the DC Universe or were done in alternate continuities.

When Clark Kent finally crosses that line and allows himself to kill, it always acts as the beginning of a slippery slope. In the ongoing comic story Injustice, the Joker tricks Superman into accidentally killing Lois Lane and her unborn baby before detonating a nuclear weapon in the middle of Metropolis. Clark finally snaps and kills the Joker — something Batman had always refused to do.

Bruce immediately comes into conflict with Superman, but chooses to bide his time and hope that his friend will realize his mistake. Instead, Superman slips further into the role of seemingly benevolent dictator. After killing the Joker, Superman decides it’s time to stop playing with kid gloves, and he begins taking out those who have committed atrocious acts. Dictators fall, villains are killed, and the descent of the world’s greatest hero into mass murderer begins. Once the Rubicon has been crossed, Clark finds it increasingly easy to kill, even ending the life of Green Arrow over a simple misunderstanding in front of his own parents.

Batman stands by his philosophical beliefs and becomes the only man able to bring down the Dictator of Steel. But if he is given the opportunity, will Bruce Wayne be morally obligated to end the life of a super killer? Obviously, Batman says no, but other heroes would answer differently.

In Age of Ultron, the Marvel world is plunged into darkness by a robot-killing machine. When Wolverine learns that Ultron was built by Hank Pym, the original Ant-Man, he decides to do what is necessary to save the world. Wolverine travels back in time to kill Pym before he even conceives of Ultron. Pym, at that time, was still heroic, a member of the Avengers. He had yet to do anything wrong, but Wolverine, believing in utilitarian ethics, chose to end the man’s life before his creation could cause any harm. The plan ultimately backfired, but Wolverine’s willingness to kill a still-innocent man provokes an interesting question about what makes someone heroic.

The Jedi of the Star Wars universe don’t have the benefit of time travel, but they do take seriously their duty to maintain the peace, even if that means killing. Unlike with Superman and others, there is no hesitation in the Jedi when it comes to taking down those who would harm the innocent. The Jedi, like the Green Lantern Corps and the real-world police, are charged with protecting the innocent and are thus allowed to kill when necessary.

In Phantom Menace, Obi-Wan Kenobi seemingly ends the life of the Sith Lord, Darth Maul, due to his personal feelings that the Sith are evil. We, as members of the audience, are inclined to agree with his decision, but have a very different point of view when it is Anakin Skywalker who behaves in the same manner. In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin cuts off the hand of Jedi master Mace Windu, allowing Darth Sidious to kill him. Anakin, like his old master, was taking action against a man he perceived to be committing an evil act — after all, Mace Windu was technically trying to enact a coup.

The death of Mace Windu led to 30 years of oppressive rule under the Empire. Does this result make Anakin’s actions any more reprehensible than Obi-Wan’s? Under utilitarian ethics, the answer is yes, but using deontology, both actions hold equal moral weight.

The beauty of fictional superheroes, however, is that morally difficult questions can be solved with creative writing. A hero does not have to choose between killing the supervillain or letting innocents die. Batman can stop Red Hood’s gun, Superman can turn back time, and Goku can use the Dragon Balls to wish his enemies back to life with new moral compasses. Unfortunately, these third choices can be seen as copouts at best, and poor storytelling at worst. One of the worst offenders of this copout came about as part of the most compelling and philosophically challenging stories ever told. On Nickelodeon, at least.

Avatar: The Last Airbender follows the story of Aang, the fabled Avatar. The Avatar is styled on the Dalai Lama, if the Buddhist leader could shoot fire from his hands. The Avatar is reincarnated upon death and is distinguished from other element benders by his or her ability to bend all four elements: Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. Aang is the sole survivor of the Air Nation, a society of pacifist monks whose abilities were used primarily in defense.

Aang is told his entire life that it is his destiny to defeat the Fire Lord, who has conquered most of the four nations and brought oppression to the people. No one doubts the Fire Lord is evil, but Aang is still a little boy and is unable to accept that killing his nemesis is the answer. When all of his human mentors tell him that he has no other choice, Aang looks to the spirits of his past lives — the previous Avatars — for another answer. Unfortunately, they all declare the same thing: the evil of the Fire Lord must be defeated, and Aang must accept his destiny by killing the man.

Even during the final fight, Aang refuses to do what is expected of him but finds a third way. The Avatar uses his powers to take away the bending ability of the Fire Lord, relegating him to the status and danger level of a regular human. Aang is able to stick to his deontological beliefs even with the fate of the world on the line. Sure, it was contrived and came with no foreshadowing, but it spoke to a strong ethical ideal and seemed to split the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. Aang was able to stand by his beliefs and still save the world, never compromising. But even the spiritual leaders of this mystic world from across the ages found nothing wrong with killing a dangerous man. Ultimately, it was Aang’s personal morality, not a universally held social morality, that prevented the Avatar from crossing a line he was unwilling to cross.

Perhaps this is the difference between Batman and Superman as well. Batman’s aversion to death comes from the trauma of seeing his own parents gunned down before him. Superman only ever experienced such loss in distant ways, and his morality was formed only by lessons from virtuous parents. Maybe this is why writers find it so much easier to see Superman finally crack and kill people. Wolverine’s willingness to kill comes from his understanding that the world is a much darker place, and it is sometimes necessary to do something morally questionable for the greater good.

These characters’ personal ethics about taking the lives of others does not dictate whether or not they can be considered heroes any more than it can in the real world. But it is these ethics that define the characters we love and that lend them their staying power. They give us examples to live by, just as ancient mythology did for our ancestors.

What do you think? Is Batman to blame when the Joker kills innocents? Should Aang have been prepared to do the unthinkable for the fate of his world? Is Wolverine any less heroic for killing an innocent Hank Pym? Did Zack Snyder make a mistake by having his Superman kill General Zod?

These questions are a lot more relevant now, in a world of terrorist attacks and mass shootings. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of writers who can concoct new powers for us when the time calls for it, and we may all some day be faced with a difficult decision that makes us rethink our moral codes.

mcu

Powers, perils of building cinematic megafranchise

Every few years, a movie transforms the way Hollywood does business. The Birth of a Nation, Star Wars, and others changed the game through their financial and cinematic successes. Marvel’s The Avengers, released in 2012, changed the game again.

By taking their time and releasing five distinct movies before The Avengers, Marvel laid down a strong foundation on which to build. Audiences were intrigued by Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, and Captain America, but they were much more intrigued by what would happen when these cinematic characters met for the first time. When The Avengers was finally released, Marvel succeeded not only financially, but in creating something entirely new to cinema: the megafranchise.

The Avengers has grossed over $1.5 billion internationally and has had residual effects on other Marvel Studios releases. The Winter Soldier has grossed almost twice what its predecessor, Captain America, has, and Thor’s box office receipts increased for its second installment by around 50 percent as well. The result has been attempts by other studios, specifically those with the rights to superhero properties, to duplicate Marvel’s success. Some have done well trying to adapt to this model, but others are risking the destruction of their franchises by not understanding what made The Avengers so successful.

The idea of a megafranchise is that several stories and characters that are commercially viable in their own right work together under the same fictional umbrella in such a way that all component properties end up being more successful, with the eventual crossover making even more money. The cinematic megafranchise has roots in the superhero comic book.

Since All-Star Comics #3, released in 1940 by DC Comics, comic books have been using crossovers to build interest in new characters and to increase profits in existing titles. All-Star #3 saw the formation of the Justice Society of America, the first super-powered team to star characters from several different series, including the original versions of The Flash, Green Lantern, Sandman, and more.

DC may have been the first to use the team-up tactic in comics, but Marvel made the crossover its modus operandi. When Stan Lee first introduced his brand of Marvel heroes, he revolutionized the industry by making his heroes flawed and fallible. Flawed heroes are susceptible to human errors, including misunderstanding the motivations of other heroes. That makes the possibilities of crossovers endless, with heroes like Daredevil mistaking the antics of Spider-Man, leading to a fight in New York City.

Lee saw this potential and made sure to place all of his heroes in a single, interconnected fictional world. Creating a Marvel Universe where crossovers were expected helped to make Marvel the industry leader. Crossover stories would allow fans to see who would win in a fight between their favorite heroes, but also helped to raise the value of lesser-known characters. This tactic was used well in Avengers comics from the beginning.

The Avengers came together in 1963 with an all-star lineup of Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man, and Wasp. Three issues later, they were joined by Marvel heroes’ patriarch, Captain America. It wasn’t long, however, before the creative team at Marvel began using the Avengers to promote lesser-known heroes. In only its 13th issue, the Avengers lost the entire original lineup and reformed with Captain America leading a “cooky quartet” including Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver. All three of Cap’s cohorts were originally villains and were using the superhero team as a way to achieve redemption — and to gain greater notoriety among comic book fans.

With the increasing popularity of comic book movies, it was inevitable that Hollywood would adapt Lee’s storytelling style, especially when one of the studios making superhero movies actually was Marvel. Marvel had sold away the rights to its biggest properties a long time ago, losing X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and more. So, when Marvel decided to create its own film studio, the options for franchises were limited.

Marvel Studios took a gamble on a second-tier hero known as Iron Man, who was created by Lee as a sort of challenge to himself: he wanted to create a hero who would be very unlikable to his anti-establishment audience and force them to like him. And thus, Tony Stark, the billionaire, playboy, industrialist, was born. In the movies, Marvel relied on Robert Downey Jr. to deliver both the audience and a show-stealing performance.

By showing the world what could be done with its remaining superhero properties, Marvel Studios built in an audience for additional films. But Iron Man did so much more. The post-credits appearance of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury told fans there was much more to see — that the world of Iron Man was vastly larger than just Tony Stark.

Every succeeding movie built on the groundwork of Iron Man by adding more to the mythos and getting fans excited for the next new entry. People who would not normally be fans of Norse mythology were interested in seeing Thor thanks to the allusions to Mjolnir in Iron Man 2. People who thought Captain America would be a hokey movie still bought tickets because they knew it was building to something larger. By the time The Avengers was released, it was a foregone conclusion that it would be a true blockbuster.

Studios that had already been making superhero movies for years took notice but found themselves in a difficult situation. 20th Century Fox had been producing X-Men movies for a long time and tried to use the team movies to spin off into solo titles, an inverse of what Marvel had been doing. Unfortunately, to this day, Fox has created only one independent franchise, in Wolverine.

With the success of The Avengers, Fox chose to follow the Marvel model by creating a movie loaded with heroes. The result, X-Men: Days of Future Past, was an incredible movie that deserves its comparisons to The Avengers as among the best superhero movies ever made. But its success is nowhere near the level of The Avengers. Why? Because many of the X-Men characters have been seen together already, and there has been no franchise dedicated entirely to building stories for Magneto, Mystique, Storm, or any of the other heroes featured in DoFP.

Sony Pictures’ answer to Marvel has been to use the Spider-Man villains in their own spinoff movies since the Spider-Man franchise is limited to only one major hero. Rumors abound about a Venom movie, which fans hope will lead to the first screen adaptation of Carnage, and Sony has practically confirmed it will produce a movie based on the Sinister Six, a team of six supervillains.

In its attempts to build a megafranchise, however, Sony has made some mistakes. By cramming several villains into The Amazing Spider-Man 2, none of the new characters were able to flesh out their motivations and become more compelling to movie audiences. Though I believe Amazing 2 actually was pretty amazing, other fans weren’t so happy, thinking Sony displayed for everyone the pitfalls of getting too overzealous when attempting to build a megafranchise.

The worst offender of trying to duplicate Marvel’s success has been Warner Brothers. Time Warner owns DC Comics and has had the rights to make movies based on some of the most popular heroes in the world for a long time. Yet somehow, Warner Brothers has mostly only been able to spit out movies based on their two major icons, Batman and Superman, while completely ignoring their third, Wonder Woman, and doing a poor job with Green Lantern.

In a terribly misguided attempt to catch up to Marvel, Warner Brothers has been working on a sequel to Man of Steel, which has slowly evolved into a prequel to a future Justice League film. In trying to build a megafranchise, Warner Brothers has forgotten that it requires the strength of several independent franchises first. Warner Brothers is looking to skip all of that, hoping that the idea of a Batman versus Superman movie will be enough to sell tickets. And it will be.

Warner Brothers has been considering this crossover movie for decades — and for good reason. There are no two characters more iconic than the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel. But in their impatience, Warner has added Wonder Woman, who should have had her own movie years ago, as a third wheel, as well as Cyborg. Also, no movies starring Flash, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, or any other major DC hero have been announced. What Warner Brothers did announce, however, is an official Justice League movie, to be directed by Zack Snyder.

But if a movie is coming out in two years that features DC’s top three heroes together for the first time, what reason do casual superhero fans have of going to see the Justice League movie? Are unestablished Green Lantern and Flash characters going to be interesting enough to sell tickets? It’s doubtful.

Marvel made an effort to make sure we fell in love with their characters who would not normally sell tickets on their own by promising us a greater movie experience in the future. Once we had that experience, we fell in love with the characters, even leaving The Avengers asking for a Black Widow movie, which would have been unheard of a decade ago. The success of the megafranchise has created greater success for its constituent franchises, with Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America all seeing increased revenue for their newest cinematic outings. These successes have even allowed Marvel to take new risks, with D-level properties Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man coming to theaters in the next year.

Marvel has proved that it has a winning formula, but it is one that takes time and patience. Fox is beginning to work toward creating a stronger megafranchise in the X-Men by producing more solo movies for characters outside of Wolverine, but Fox’s lack of faith in strong mutant characters, many of whom are women, is holding the studio back. And Sony has shown the risk of relying too heavily on creating a megafranchise, to the detriment of the existing franchises. But Warner Brothers, which has the strongest chance of creating a tremendous cinematic universe, is missing out on the opportunity to create several strong franchises in favor of taking a quicker path to a megafranchise — one that is unlikely to be able to match the success of The Avengers.

Will Justice League, Sinister Six, and future X-Men team-up movies be successful? As a fan of superhero movies, I certainly hope so. But I am willing to wait for them to be set up correctly. As fans, we would much rather see strong movies based on Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, and even Cyborg before being thrust into the world of the Justice League. Unfortunately, the promise of Avengers-level profits have clouded the minds of Hollywood producers. Hopefully, they will start to see things long-term, before a massive flop kills the momentum of the superhero genre.

nxt-takeover

NXT Takeover showed WWE can still deliver

If you are a professional wrestling fan and haven’t signed up for WWE Network, do it. Thursday night’s NXT Takeover special proved that the future of wrestling is bright by putting on an incredible show that, by itself, makes the WWE Network worth the price.

When the network first launched, WWE tested the waters for live streaming with a special event titled NXT ArRival. The two-hour card was an incredible spectacle, showcasing the greatest WWE NXT, the company’s developmental branch, has to offer. Casual wrestling fans got their first taste of new performers, like Adrian Neville, Paige, and Sami Zayn (El Generico), and all of the wrestlers impressed.

During NXT ArRival, Zayn and Antonio Cesaro stole the show with a 20-minute epic. Paige and Emma fought another incredible bout over the NXT Women’s Championship. And Neville stunned new fans with his incredible high-flying repertoire. It seemed like the NXT wrestlers would never be able to top their first show, so when NXT Takeover was announced, fans were skeptical about whether or not NXT could keep up its momentum.

When NXT Takeover aired live Thursday night, the wrestlers outperformed even the highest of expectations. It was another dramatic, well-executed show from top to bottom that showed what WWE is capable of when the producers and writers stay focused and deliver a real wrestling show. There were no questionable segments, no little people in bull costumes, no infuriating commentary, and plenty of standout matches. After watching NXT Takeover, I can see that WWE has all of the talent, in-ring and behind the scenes, to create an incredible show every week.

NXT Takeover stuck with a simple formula. It promoted three big matches, gave time for all three to breathe, and let all six performers show off what they could do.

Zayn proved that he deserves to be listed next to Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler as WWE’s greatest in-ring talents, and his opponent, Tyler Breeze, showed he belonged, too. Move after move, kick out after kick out, it was easy to buy into every big maneuver as the one to end the match. The near falls in this match were so close that it was hard to tell whether or not the referee made a mistake and actually counted to three.

Zayn and Breeze exchanged impressive offense that alternated between graceful and brutal. At least one sequence was so quick and perplexing that it may take scientists years to determine what actually happened. The commentators were on fire, putting over Breeze’s new attitude and Zayn’s difficult and ongoing journey to the NXT Championship. The match felt like a clash of two gladiators and kept the fans on the edge of their seats from beginning to end. The finish of the match, which saw Zayn take a seemingly inadvertent low blow, was creative, and put over Breeze’s finishing move without making Zayn look weak in defeat.

In a classic WWE move, the women were sent out after a show-stealing match. Unlike most WWE shows, however, the women put on an equally incredible show. Natalya Neidhart battled Charlotte Flair for the vacant NXT Women’s Championship in a match that had bigger names attached to it than most WrestleMania matches. Natalya was accompanied to the ring by her uncle, the legendary Bret Hart, and Charlotte had her father, the iconic Ric Flair, in her corner.

From the beginning, this match felt like something special. Flair and Hart rarely appear on WWE TV anymore, and never at the same time. Showing that greatness is a family trait, Charlotte and Natalya tore the house down, reversing moves that would have been a finish on any WWE Raw Divas’ match. Natalya tried putting Charlotte away with her uncle’s Sharpshooter, only to have it reversed into the Flair family’s classic figure-four leglock. The match felt powerful and personal, with the two ladies slapping each other ruthlessly while locked up in Nature Boy’s signature submission.

The crowd chanted, “This is awesome,” which is so rare to hear during women’s matches, so often dominated by untrained models instead of real wrestlers for the last decade. When Charlotte put Natalya in her own Sharpshooter, it looked like the match was over, but Nattie managed to escape before finally being put away clean by Charlotte’s own signature maneuver.

What happened next made the match feel like a part of history. Ric Flair, overcome with emotion, entered the ring to celebrate with his daughter, as Hart entered to console his niece. The two legendary wrestlers stood by their families as Charlotte and Natalya exchanged a very real, emotional hug. It was obvious that they understood what they had just accomplished. This women’s match went 17 minutes — four times what would be par for a Divas match on typical WWE programming, fulfilling what our resident feminist hoped to see out of the WWE Network. And it was incredible, putting it in contention, alongside Zayn-Breeze, for Match of the Year.

Then, to make the moment even more special, Bret Hart and Ric Flair, two pillars of professional wrestling, shook hands, and each hugged both of the girls as all four were seemingly overwhelmed by the incredible performance. The two legacy stars proved they belonged in a big way, and proved, like Paige and Emma did at NXT ArRival, what the ladies can bring to the ring.

Tyson Kidd had the unenviable task of following his wife in the main event against Neville for the NXT Championship. The two wrestlers did an outstanding job, delivering an innovative, violent, and dramatic title match. Kidd proved himself as the most underutilized talent on the WWE roster by hitting moves most wrestlers couldn’t even land in their dreams. Neville proved he belonged in WWE by going hold for hold with one of the greatest mat wrestlers of this generation. Neville retained the title after hitting the incomparable Red Arrow corkscrew shooting star press. It was a strong end to the show, but could not possibly top the two matches it followed.

NXT Takeover proved yet again what WWE can do when it is committed to putting on a good show and allows the wrestlers to do what they do best. The card was built around three big, well-paced matches. No one needed to kick out of a finisher to create extra drama, they just needed to be innovative between their signature spots. The commentary told stories while putting over the guys and girls in the ring as talented and hungry athletes. The heels came across as ruthless, the faces came across as valiant. No match ended with a screw job or interference, but no one looked weak in defeat. It was WWE at its best, and we can only hope that moving these athletes to the main roster will not kill what makes them unique. Unfortunately, WWE has a poor track record when it comes to introducing new talent.

If you haven’t already, I urge you to sign up for WWE Network and watch NXT ArRival and NXT Takeover. You will not be disappointed.