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.

How to avoid perils of rebooting Power Rangers

The dream of 90s kids everywhere is about to come true. Lionsgate recently announced a partnership with Saban to reboot the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers on the big screen.

As a long time and devoted fan of the Power Rangers, no one was more excited by the announcement than me. However, there are a lot of potential pitfalls about a movie whose source material is maddeningly incomprehensible.

Power Rangers premiered in the United States on Fox in 1993 and quickly became an American sensation. But the Power Rangers are not American creations and are anything but original. Power Rangers is loosely based on a Japanese show, known as Super Sentai, which has been on the air since the 1970s. And not only is Power Rangers based on Super Sentai, but it actually uses the Japanese footage of the heroes, monsters, and Zords, spliced with shots of American actors reacting to things. The show then mixes this footage into what can politely be called a story, and Saban makes millions of dollars off of toy sales.

But I love it. Millions of fans across a generation love it as well. And now we want a Power Rangers movie, but we want it to make sense while still not being an embarrassingly terrible adaptation like Dragonball: Evolution. So what to do?

The first thing Saban and Lionsgate should do, before even culling the 150 Mighty Morphin episodes for potential stories, is determine the audience. Power Rangers has survived for two decades by being colorful and exciting to every child watching for the first time. The stark dichotomy between good and evil, the bright and interesting costumes, the giant robot animals, and the incredibly unnecessary dance moves performed when starting a fight make the show impossible for children to hate. And the show is still on the air, providing happiness for kids everywhere who will undoubtedly want to see a Power Rangers movie the minute they hear about it.

However, there is an entire generation of fans of the original who are adults now and want to see our childhood stories retold in a way that makes us feel young again while intriguing our adult sensibilities. That makes the job of the Lionsgate writers incredibly difficult, but not impossible.

The short answer is to make a PG-13-rated movie. The G.I. Joe and Transformers films, which similarly traded in nostalgia, are PG-13. For the most part, these movies thread the needle well for reaching a broad audience, and lessons can be taken from them.

The G.I Joe movies were based on a 1980s children’s show, but honestly were always about guns, swords, and war, just like Power Rangers. But the G.I. Joe movies were also pretty bad. The first one at least seemed to understand what was great about the franchise — the advanced technology, the sense of heroism, etc. — and ran with it, but the second, starring The Rock, forgot all of that and decided instead to make a popcorn action-and-explosions movie, full of terrible one-liners and forgettable characters.

The Transformers movies, however, were (mostly) much better. Though there is obviously a lot of criticism out there for these Michael Bay explosion festivals, the movies have been quite successful, and in this Nerd’s opinion, very enjoyable. The Transformers trilogy took what was essential about the franchise, updated it, set it up in the post-9/11 America we all know and love, and made two interesting movies — and whatever you want to call that nonsense in Egypt.

Most importantly, Bay’s series was able to appeal broadly to kids and adults. Kids, who can still watch Transformers on television, loved the action, the story about good and evil, and the explosions. Adults loved the action, the story about good and evil, and the explosions. And the adult men loved Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whitely. The constant references to male genitalia were veiled enough that the kids mostly didn’t notice.

With enough giant robot fights and at least a coherent story, a Power Rangers movie can be just as successful, if not more than, Transformers.

Unfortunately, to achieve Bay-levels of testostersplosions requires an incredible budget, which I doubt Lionsgate is willing to provide. Despite backing the most successful domestic movie of 2013, Lionsgate is not the biggest monster in Finster’s factory. And Power Rangers on the silver screen is not yet a known entity. Lionsgate is likely to provide a relatively small budget for the heroes, and we will probably be treated to visual effects not much better than the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers film of the 90s.

But Lionsgate isn’t Legendary Pictures. They actually support filmmakers who know how to script a story well for the big screen, even if that story is Twilight. So the next question is: what can Lionsgate take from the source material in order to create a compelling blockbuster?

In short, not much. Power Rangers fans are not as rabid as Batman fans and won’t decry the death of their favorite characters just because of a questionable casting choice. (But really, Ben Affleck?) All Lionsgate has to do is give us five, maybe six, teenagers with attitude, dressed in bright spandex, taking orders from a translucent floating head and his robot life partner, fighting horrible monsters, and piloting 30-story mechanized animals. Other than that: you are free to do as you please.

After all, the Power Rangers origin story lasts all of 10 minutes. The primary villain was trapped inside a dumpster since before recorded human history and was freed by astronauts during what appeared to be a beautiful sunlit morning on the moon. Zordon, transdimensional wizard that he is, determined the best way to handle this vengeful threat to humanity was to entrust superpowers to five randomly selected children.

Lionsgate can start by expanding this origin story from 10 minutes to 60. Let us learn some things about the characters and why an ancient alien would entrust the fate of the planet to these young heroes. What makes Jason a good leader? Why is Billy so closed off from the world? Why is Kimberly so annoying? The five original Rangers are a blank slate. Paint away, Lionsgate, paint away.

The important thing for this reboot, as with any cinematic adaptation, is not to be beholden to specific storylines, but to adapt the themes and core qualities of the source material. This is where Winter Soldier succeeded and Man of Steel failed. Both movies were adapting heroes with hokey backgrounds from a different era, but Marvel embraced the iconic and heroic nature of Captain America, while Warner Brothers ran away from what makes Superman special.

The Power Rangers on the silver screen should not be lame — except Billy, of course — but they should be heroic and inspiring, even if their home is grittier than the Angel Grove we have come to love. The Power Rangers should become the symbol of light needed in a dark world facing an attack from an alien force of unknown origin. The men and women under the masks, however, should be flawed humans struggling with bearing that burden on their shoulders. Unlike Superman, Jason, Trini, Zack, Kimberly, and Billy were not born to be superheroes but were drafted into a war. Their lives were changed forever, and like Spider-Man, the Power Rangers must accept the responsibility that their powers require of them.

Whatever Lionsgate decides to do, I can guarantee that I will be at the theater for the movie’s premiere. As someone who’s life has been heavily influenced by the Power Rangers, I hope to see this franchise successful on the silver screen. And Lionsgate, I’m available if you need writers.

Postscript:

Lionsgate has complete freedom in terms of what origin story to tell, but with a sequel inevitable, there is one story that needs to be told. “Green with Evil” told the story of an evil Power Ranger who was granted his powers by Rita Repulsa. This Green Power Ranger was Tommy Oliver, the new kid in school. Tommy spent five episodes schooling the other Rangers, completely dismantling them, while holding the advantage of fighting a team of heroes unwilling to kill someone whom they knew was under an evil spell. As great as this story is, however, it requires a team of heroes who have already been established as credible. An evil Power Ranger means nothing if the world doesn’t already know the Rangers as heroes.

Of course, this leads to the most important question of all: will Jason David Frank, the original Green Ranger, be a part of this new movie? I hope so, and plenty of fans do as well. A reboot means a big role is unlikely, however, but we can at least hope for a Stan Lee-like cameo from everyone’s favorite ranger. Perhaps JDF will even be granted a larger role as a mentor of sorts to the new Rangers, though without the history of the Tommy Oliver character connected to him.

Sound off. What do you most want to see from the new Power Rangers movie? And please, don’t all say Polluticorn.

Mad Men midseason review, part 1: Questions

Things have really changed at SC&P since we rejoined Don and the others at the start of 1969. It’s been an incredible half season, full of all the Mad Men trademarks, and a lot of attentive fans looking for clues as to how it’s all going to end.

Perhaps the show is a tragedy about the excesses of capitalism. Maybe it’s only supposed to be a historical drama, telling the tale of America’s changes in the 1960s. Or it might just be what we have been talking about all season: a story of redemption.

Western culture is flush with redemption stories, to the point where it almost becomes nauseating. Yet we expect it. We want our protagonists to make it out of the story alive and to become better people for taking the journey. We like it so much that when a television show decides to end on a more somber or ambiguous note, we end up pretty frustrated.

As fans, many of us have taken hold of the idea that season 7 of Mad Men is supposed to be the story of Don Draper’s redemption. Could it be?

All of the signs are there. Don has finally made peace with his children, sharing a touching moment with his daughter Sally. He’s also finally shown some respect to Peggy Olson, which he eventually earned back in another touching moment when the two creative geniuses shared a dance to Frank Sinatra. Don has been drinking less, with a few exceptions, since he returned to SC&P, and he’s even been working hard at his job to try and earn back the esteem of his partners.

Even the bad moments Don has had seem to be pushing him toward a better life. He and Megan are getting a divorce, but in a civilized and friendly way, unlike his split with Betty. The end of the relationship is a necessary next step for Don’s growth, as their marriage seemed doomed from the beginning. It was rushed, contrived, and had a lot more fighting early on than fans had probably expected. Sure, Don refrained from cheating for a while, but eventually, the girl from Freaks and Geeks changed that. (I still haven’t forgiven her for breaking up Cory and Topanga.)

Don and Megan’s marriage isn’t even ending because of his infidelity but simply because they are growing apart as the world around them changes. Their ability to get a divorce for such reasons is also an incredible indication of how times have changed since the early days of Mad Men.

For so long, Don’s character has been defined by the women in his life — his marriages to Betty and Megan, his strained relationships with Peggy and Sally, and his flings with all of his countless paramours over the years. Don’s ties to each of these women were always representative of the times. He was the face of corporate America and the ideal 1960s man, and his attitudes toward these ladies were defined by his era.

He treated Betty as a trophy wife for most of their time together. He shouted at Peggy so often that it was hard to keep track of why he was angry at her. And Sally was such a distant person to him that it was hard to believe he was her father. But as the show has evolved, so has Don. He has now regained favor with the women in his life, even as he faces a second divorce. Even he and Betty haven’t been in any arguments in a long time.

However, is Don making peace with his extended family part of a larger road to redemption, or is it all leading to a much more heartbreaking demise?

Don’s continued flaw is his addiction to his career. He can’t function without the ad agency. The potential buyout of SC&P by McCann Erickson requires a five-year contract from Don Draper, which he appears to be happy to sign. Ironically, Don started the show terrified of contracts and the prospect of being held down; he was only willing to change his tune when practically blackmailed by Bert Cooper. Could his old fear of contracts prove to be a valid one, with his new contract bringing Don back to his lowest levels? Is signing the contract going to be akin to Don signing away his soul and his creative freedom to a company he has been fighting for years?

And will the millions of dollars he stands to make drive a wedge between him and Megan, with her deciding to take Don up on his offer of financial security? Perhaps Don’s conversation about divorce with Harry Crane was another bit of genius foreshadowing.

With Lane Pryce’s name being brought up all the time, it seems the show runners are hinting at something equally big happening. Is it truly inevitable that Don live out the scene from the series opening, or is that only a red herring?

Maybe the contract with McCann won’t be his undoing, but rather, his salvation. Perhaps Roger Sterling is about to prove that he truly is a leader by playing a chess game against McCann Erickson at the most Machiavellian level. Without dad watching over the agency anymore, it’s time for someone to step up, and Roger is not about to let Jim Cutler, McCann, or anyone else take away his birthright. If Roger gets his way, we may see Sterling and Draper take over McCann from within and become the leaders of the top agency in the country. If they succeed, will Roger and Don finally be happy?

Perhaps we’ve been looking at it all wrong, and the answer is for Don to move away from New York. He clearly loves Stephanie and the actual Draper family in a very real way. He always seems happiest when he’s in L.A., and the west coast has clearly done a lot for Pete. Don Draper’s creativity knows no bounds, and Hollywood is about to enter a golden age in the 1970s. Dick Whitman is a good man, and he needs to be in a better environment.

So many questions have yet to be answered. Matthew Weiner, Jon Hamm, and the rest of the cast and crew at Mad Men continue to spin an incredible tale of America in the 1960s, packed with intrigue, twists, and tragedies. It’s going to be a long year before season 7 resumes, but I look forward to the conclusion of Matthew Weiner’s masterpiece.

Season 7, Episode 7: ‘Waterloo,’ part 1

A panel of viewers here at Curiata.com will engage in a roundtable discussion following each episode of Mad Men’s seventh and final season. Check back throughout the week for new entries in the series.

Was Bert Cooper sending Don Draper a message from beyond? Is Cooper warning Don against selling his soul to McCann? Or was Don just seeing things? And even if he was, was Don seeing what he needed to see?

This season has been all about building a conflict among the partners of SC&P, and it finally came to a head in the mid-season finale. Jim Cutler made his move against Don and found himself facing opposition from half of the partners, including, surprisingly, Bert Cooper. Cooper was perhaps the most direct with Don about his intentions to force Don to leave the agency, but as Bert explained to Roger Sterling, Don was a member of his team, and he stands by his team. Interestingly, Bert stated that Jim was not part of his team.

Cooper also made it clear that he did not believe Roger was a leader. Bert’s off-the-cuff remarks all season made it pretty clear that he was willing to speak his mind, and his comments toward his longtime partner were likely reflective of his true feelings. As man touched down on the moon, Bert Cooper let go of his ties to the planet, passing away free of the weight of things left unsaid.

Sterling responded to his partner’s death by trying to prove Cooper wrong. Sterling is trying to save Don’s job and restore his own power with the agency by changing it from within. They’ve been bought out before, but Roger believes he can make a better deal this time around. But is making a deal with this rival agency really the way out for Roger and Don?

Perhaps the show-closing song and dance performed by the spirit of Bert Cooper was meant for Roger as well as Don: “The best things in life are free.” Roger will never lose that moment he shared with his grandson, watching humankind reach the moon. Maybe Roger, like Ted Chaough, needs to step away from advertising to reevaluate his life and save himself from the brink of self-destruction. Was Bert showing that he was able to live as long as he did because he maintained a zen-like attitude while his partners and competitors cut throats and lived heavy?

And maybe that’s the entire moral of Matthew Weiner’s masterpiece, boiled down, ironically, into a seven-word catchphrase.

The partners at SC&P are rich, or at least will be. Peggy has risen higher than most women in the 1960s could have dreamed, and she did it before even turning 30. Yet none of them are happy for more than a few moments at a time because there is always another material gain to be had. Roger was always happiest when he was with Joan. Peggy found her greatest relief last week when she and Don finally buried the hatchet and danced together as if father and daughter.

Don has been learning Cooper’s lesson for the past few seasons. If Jon Hamm’s acting is any indication, the happiest Don has been throughout the entirety of the show was when his kids made him feel vindicated: when Bobby made him cry from his selflessness on the night of the Martin Luther King assassination, and when Sally told Don that she loved him. In those moments, we were able to see Don Draper as the caring, good man that he is deep down.

Perhaps the best things in life are free. Whether it’s that one moment when the entire world is watching as man lands on the moon, or that kiss from a pretty girl that you could have never expected. Mad Men is telling us to go out and enjoy the world. Don’t let work consume you, or your life may lead to an abrupt stop at the end of a rope, in the wreckage of a crashed plane, or on the pavement of Madison Avenue.

Days of Future Past fulfills promise of ‘comic book movie’

“Comic book movies” have been a huge part of the pop culture mainstream since the first X-Men film was released over a decade ago. Some have been unquestionable home runs, while others have been critical and commercial failures. Almost all have followed similar formulas: take the characters and themes of the source material and put them into a world as real as possible. Every movie follows traditional Hollywood rules in terms of scripting and does everything it can to appeal to the new fan, making each sequel feel almost like a fresh start.

X-Men: Days of Future Past changes all of that. It fulfills the promise of what a “comic book movie” can be. As The A.V. Club recently explained in its review, DoFP does away with the need to remind viewers of who the characters are. In a sense, it adapts the sometimes maddening quality of superhero comic books, which count on rabid fans to understand the extensive history of the franchise. For DoFP, however, it works. The movie lets the characters breathe so that even new fans are able to pick up their traits quickly without having to be explicitly told their backstories. Minor details, like Wolverine’s pre-adamantium bone claws, are candy for fanboys without intruding on the story for newcomers.

The movie feeds off of the franchise’s history. Mystique and Professor X’s friendship from X-Men: First Class is the primary mover of the plot, with Charles Xavier spending the entire movie trying to save Raven from herself. His relationship with Magneto plays the same important role in the story as it always does, but in a much fresher way; we are shown both men at two very different times in their lives: one in which their philosophies have them in great conflict, and the other when war has rekindled their lost friendship. We are expected to remember everything the two men put each other through in the original X trilogy, as well as their split in First Class, in order to understand their conflict in this movie, as well as to raise the stakes of Wolverine’s mission.

Wolverine’s character continues his development from his last movie. Logan is still suffering from the loss of Jean Grey in X-Men: The Last Stand, and it is the memories of her and other slaughtered mutants that motivate him to take the journey.

This sense of history and self-reference to several different stories is a hallmark of superhero comic books and makes DoFP great, giving it the feeling of an epic conclusion, even while doing what comics always do at the end of their arcs: start the next story.

Even beyond the self-referential nature of the movie, DoFP feels like a real-life comic book. The entire story structure is more like a six-issue comic collection than a three-act play. Each section of the movie tells a distinct story that’s a part of the larger narrative.

In true comic book form, one of these subplots sees the introduction of Quicksilver. The lightning-fast teen steals the show for a few minutes, then quickly moves on, allowing the core heroes to continue on without him. Comic book fans are familiar with this trope. Characters pop up in other protagonists’ titles all the time, only to leave by the next issue to return to their own adventures. Writers often employ this technique to move their stories along, using the unique abilities of other characters to fulfill a narrative need. In abundance, this can take away from the hero’s story, but DoFP uses the cameo effectively, in a way that hurt no one’s development and gives the dark film some much-needed comic relief.

Previous “comic book movies” relied heavily on the characters to sell the story and the action to tell it. DoFP broke the mold by relying on the story to sell the movie and the characters to tell it. In fact, DoFP and Captain America: The Winter Soldier are the first superhero movies to actually be named after specific comic book story arcs. As such, both movies relied less on combining disparate stories to pack as much plot in as possible, like X3 did, and instead were able to build primarily off of one story and fill in the gaps with strong character development.

And what a story DoFP told. The original comic book storyline is beloved for a reason. Until recently, it was the kind of story that only comic books could tell. The time-traveling tale predates The Terminator by three years and Back to the Future by four. Both the movie and the comics tell two tales in different eras simultaneously, establishing the rules of time travel early and sticking to them.

The movie manages to combine several types of stories in a way that truly honors the source material. It’s equal parts 1984 dystopia, civil rights allegory, time-travel odyssey, superhero epic, and personal drama. Seeing all of these elements in one story is what makes superhero comics great, and the X-Men cosmic opera so beloved.

20th Century Fox took a big gamble with DoFP. A story like this requires a huge budget. The effects used in the future scenes alone are incredibly impressive. The Sentinels come across as horrifying, monstrous machines, which are pretty much unbeatable. And, as always, Magneto shows off his powers in terrifying new ways.

DoFP the film is the realization of the vision of Chris Claremont, author of the comic-book arc. It is a movie that tells an important story about acceptance and humanity while pushing the limits of science fiction to bold new places. It punctuates important moral points with explosions and giant robots. It’s pretty much the coolest way to learn about loving our fellow man.

If you haven’t already, see X-Men: Days of Future Past as soon as possible. Whether you are a fan of blockbusters or of character dramas, you will leave the theater happy.

Season 7, Episode 6: ‘The Strategy,’ part 3

I have to disagree with the Modern Urban Gentleman about Don Draper’s intentions. Perhaps I’m naive, but I don’t believe Don is playing Peggy. He has had way too much growth in the last two seasons to throw all of that away. What do you think this is, How I Met Your Mother?

Draper Campbell Olson. Has a nice ring to it.

As mentioned previously, the theme of this episode was family. However, it was about more than just family; it was about the competing interests of family and career. Since the beginning of the series, Don Draper, Pete Campbell, and Peggy Olson have made questionable decisions about their families in order to continue advancing in their careers. Pete and Peggy have a child together, and Peggy chooses to ignore its existence, partly due to the shame associated with unwed mothers, but also due to her unwavering, arguably selfish, need to succeed. Of course, Don and Pete are no better, as they have both largely ignored their children to the point where Tammy Campbell hardly recognized her father. Don has only recently even been able to express his love for his children, and his shock when Sally expressed her love for him still gets me.

This episode shows that one does not have to choose between a family and a career. Joan, apparently a rabid progressive, has embraced the idea of family in a new age. She is unwilling to settle with Bob Benson, whom she obviously cares for and respects, because she knows they could never truly be in love. Joan, always able to read people better than anyone else, can clearly see that Bob is gay and that homosexuality is not a choice. Again, this is the 1960s. Joan is much happier accepting the non-traditional family of a child, mother, grandmother, father-posing-as-friend, and friend-acting-as-uncle. Joan sees that her family is different and loves them just the same, refusing Bob’s offer to be her boy’s adoptive father.

And despite this unique family, or perhaps because of it, Joan is highly successful. Joan has achieved the status of partner in an ad agency in the 1960s. Joan, like Peggy, represents the change in the business world as well. No longer is a mother expected to stay at home and watch her child, despite the obvious prejudice which still exists in much of the older generation.

Peggy realizes in her exchange with Don that the nuclear family isn’t real — perhaps it never was — and manages to find peace with the two men with whom she has been at odds for so long. Pete and Don both finally give Peggy the respect she deserves after an interesting scene of role reversal. Does this respect mean that Don has stolen Peggy from Lou for the inevitable war? And was adding Harry Crane as a partner a move to further deepen the ranks of the Cutler/Avery army? Don’s vote was obviously made as a way to reciprocate Harry’s help from last week’s episode. Did Cutler realize that Harry spilled the beans, so he made a move to keep Crane in his camp?

If a war is coming, then I’d place my money on Draper Campbell Olson (Sterling Holloway). After all, they’ve been together so long, and they are all so lost, perhaps it’s best to view them as a family.

X-Men portray historic, ongoing civil rights struggles

In a previous Nerd/Wise article, I explained why comic books and graphic novels are unfairly criticized and should be viewed as a form of modern art and literature. That discussion was limited to more unique works in graphic literature, ignoring the superhero genre that has come to define the medium. Today, we give superheroes their due by looking at how they can be used to tell complex, real stories. Specifically, we look at the X-Men and the allegory of civil rights, starting with its allusions to the African-American Civil Rights Movement and moving on to today’s references to the push for LGBT rights.

In 1963, Stan Lee, legendary creator of almost all of our most famous heroes, was running thin on ideas for origin stories and, in a bout of laziness, decided to create a team of heroes who were simply born with their powers. Ironically, this decision created the most compelling trait ever tacked onto a superhero team. The X-Men were heroes, like Spider-Man, because they chose to be, and chose to use their gifts for the betterment of mankind. Unlike Superman, they weren’t deified and honored but marginalized and feared.

Since (Uncanny) X-Men #1, this has been what makes the X heroes unique. They didn’t ask for their gifts, but they have to deal with them. And as such, they became the stand-in for every person who has ever felt marginalized for traits beyond their control, whether it be skin tone, gender, or sexual orientation.

The real world shows us that it is difficult to come to terms with the qualities we bear for which society chooses to judge us. Some of us are unable to handle this pressure, and we seek an outlet for our frustration. Sometimes, that frustration is let out through art or music, but many times, it can lead to outbursts of violence. Those of us who feel marginalized need the guidance of those who relate and understand our problems and can offer direction. In the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the African-American community chose a leader in Martin Luther King Jr. The X-Men were given Professor Charles Xavier.

Professor X, the mentor and leader of the X-Men, faced discrimination his entire life — not necessarily for being a mutant, which he could easily hide, but for being a quadriplegic. Professor Xavier, like King, was proof that an educated man with a vision could make a difference. Both men guided the marginalized, gave value to the voices of the unheard, and spoke truth to power while offering a vision of peace. Obviously, there are some differences. King never trained the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to fight giant robots bent on his peoples’ destruction in the streets of New York, but the similarities are still worth noting.

On the other side of the coin exists Magneto, who, for most of his history in the comic books, was the leader of the Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants. While Professor X appealed to the better angels of our nature, Magneto appealed to the more likely response from people who have spent their lives oppressed and hated. Magneto, as leader of the Brotherhood, offered mutants a chance to retaliate against human hatred. Instead of pushing his followers to win over the hearts and minds of humanity, Magneto told them they were superior, they were ascendent, they were meant to replace homo sapiens.

Magneto began as a more simplistic villain, even outright calling the Brotherhood “evil,” but he eventually evolved into a nuanced and accessible character, thanks primarily to the tremendous work of X-Men godfather Chris Claremont. Magneto was revealed to be a Holocaust survivor, and his hatred of humanity can be better understood in this light. He has already seen what humans will do to the “other,” and he refuses to allow it to happen again.

It’s easy to see the appeal of Magneto’s message — except for the mass genocide parts, at least. Magneto’s later characterizations, including those beautifully portrayed on the silver screen by Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender, show him as a militant mutant advocate but not an inherently evil man. He appeals to the young men and women who are sick of the status quo and see that the entire system is flawed and biased against them. To them, the problem can not be fixed through gradual change and education but by tearing the whole system down. Philosophically, this isn’t necessarily wrong; sometimes, a revolution is necessary to fix humanity’s mistakes. The problem is when this is taken to its logical extreme and philosophy begets violence.

Magneto has been compared to Malcolm X for his “by any means necessary” approach. Perhaps this is unfair to the man and to the character, but it is obvious that Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, and the Nation of Islam at least inspired much of Magneto and the Brotherhood’s characterization. The militancy, the rhetoric, and the desire to separate mutantkind from humanity are lifted from the Nation of Islam and their push for separation of the races.

The X team has historically been very diverse. Since Giant-Size X-Men #1, the team has had an international flavor. Joining Scott Summers and Jean Grey were the Canadian Wolverine, the German Nightcrawler, the Soviet Colossus (in the middle of the Cold War), and Storm, who was born in New York City but raised on the African continent.

This second X team was introduced in 1975, when even including an African-American superhero was still controversial. Even more unique was that Storm’s character was not defined by her “blackness”; she was a character in her own right, with an interesting origin story and traits unique to her — something incredibly rare for a woman superhero, let alone a black woman superhero.

Despite the team’s ethnic diversity, Xavier’s new gang of uncanny heroes often dealt with problems more appropriate for a cosmic opera than a civil rights allegory. However, Claremont’s skills as X-Men writer knew no bounds, and he managed to create an enduring story that appealed to fans of both science fiction and political allegory.

The upcoming X-Men movie, Days of Future Past, is based on the comic book of the same name about a dystopian future in which mutants have been hunted down and placed in internment camps. The story is the realization of Magneto’s nightmare: a second holocaust for his people. The Sentinels, giant mutant-hunting robots, seek out the former X-Men and capture or murder them ruthlessly, strictly because of their X-gene. This potential future is a reminder of everything the X-Men have to fight against. They are being destroyed strictly for being different, like the Jews of the 1930s and 40s. They are feared without reason, like many of those put through the communist trials of the early Cold War era.

And this future seems very possible in the comic book world Marvel had created by 1980. The mutants were being marginalized since their kind had first been known to the world. They had been called “mutie” and attacked by mobs. Despite doing everything right, they never seemed to make much progress.

The X-Men have evolved over the years and have taken on the characteristics of each new group being marginalized by the American mainstream. At times, they are derided as enemies of God and demons incarnate, corrupting society with their sinful ways, like the LGBT community of today. They’ve been told to stay in the closet about their powers and asked to simply “stop being a mutant,” like Iceman was in X2. And in Joss Whedon’s “Gifted” story line, scientists created a “cure,” to which the mutant community asked, “Does that mean we have a disease?”

Since 9/11, the X-Men have taken on the burden shared by Muslim-Americans. Should they be judged for the errors of others? Should all Muslims be feared and marginalized because of a few extremists? Should good, tax-paying mutants be feared and marginalized because of a few mutant terrorists?

The X-Men teach us about ourselves. They bring into focus our fears and our prejudices and ask us to rethink what we claim to already know. They show us that the world isn’t always black and white, even in a medium that was built on black and white morality tales. Are the X-Men perfect? No. They make mistakes. Often tragic ones. And many times, their dealings with the government create morally ambiguous situations in which we are left to believe that both sides are right. They challenge us. Hopefully, they continue to do so, and future generations can find themselves questioning their world thanks to the brilliant stories told about the Uncanny X-Men.

Season 7, Episode 5: ‘The Runaways,’ part 3

Forget Don Draper’s road to becoming a better man. He is a good man. He just also happens to be Machiavelli when it comes to the cut-throat world of advertising.

As Gabe and Mike have pointed out, the final scene of the episode with Don getting the better of Lou and Jim was priceless — and vintage Draper. Does having sex with women other than his wife give him some kind of superpower? When the man is good, he is good.

However, as someone who is rooting for Don to find happiness, I was pleased to see the return of the real Draper family this week. The character of Stephanie is a nice reminder of the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, Don is a good man. He just hasn’t found true happiness yet. He sees in Stephanie a genuinely good person and wants to take care of her and her child, perhaps because he still thinks he owes something to the real Don Draper.

Caity Lotz plays a truly wonderful character. She’s an honest, well-meaning person who tries, despite asking Don for help, not to be a burden. Stephanie was at a difficult crossroad in her life and handled Megan’s assumptions about her relationship with Don incredibly well. She even held her own against Deathstroke’s army of super-humans … err … wrong show.

But the true show-stealer on this episode was undeniably Ben Feldman’s Michael Ginsberg. Since his first episode, I have been waiting for this wacky character to get some more screen time. He’s been killing it in every scene he’s been in since his first appearance, including a lot of scenes in which he obviously irritates Don, who never even had the patience for Peggy. Ginsberg’s nipple scene may go down in television history as one of the most unforgettable.

Ginsberg, however, is a strange animal. He feels like a television character. Ginsberg is the TV Trope living in a world of real people. So, why is he a part of the show?

Ginsberg, Stan, and the rest of the creative team are representative of the change in the times. When we first began following the men on Madison Avenue, we were treated to hard-drinking, ambitious, wine-and-dine, business-minded characters like Pete Campbell, Harry Crane, and Ken Cosgrove. Since the change to SCDP and, later, SC&P we’ve seen the times, and the cast, change into the next generation. Stan is rude, crude, and anti-authority. Ginsberg is psychotic, neurotic, and anti-authority. And management handles them very differently. When Pete got out of line, Don or Roger would shout at him until he was on the verge of tears. Now, as Don said to Lou, they have to have thicker skin.

The rest of the episode had its brilliant moments. Don riding the tricycle comes to mind. But Sally telling off Betty was perhaps Sally’s best scene in the show’s seven-year run. At least, next to the time she told her father she loved her. Sally has finally evolved from being the annoying kid who always thinks she’s right to actually being right most of the time. And she showed that she’s a good person, too, by letting Bobby stay with her.

Betty, however, continues to be terrible, even spouting some nonsense about Vietnam. Thankfully, Henry Francis set her straight. He continues to play the likable Nixon-era Republican, and though his berating of his wife should make him the villain, Betty is so terrible and so wrong that we end up rooting for the man.

This week’s episode will go down as one of the best, with allusions to the past and a lot of evidence of growth, combined with several shocking and important scenes. I, for one, look forward to the rest of the season.

Wrong-headed criticisms of Abraham Lincoln

Recently on Fox Business Network, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano showcased his historical contrarianism by attacking the most revered presidents in U.S. history, including Abraham Lincoln. The judge declared that the American Civil War was Lincoln’s fault: that slavery had been on its last legs and that Lincoln’s decisions actually set back progress by a century.

Napolitano is a well-educated man and obviously came to this opinion after actually studying the topic, but his assertions were not unlike those made by many students of history — at least the ones who don’t dig too deep. Napolitano’s opinions are not accurate, and more indicative of a personal bias toward skepticism. And while skepticism is healthy and good for debate, Napolitano’s limited and factually erroneous views of our 16th president show how a need to believe the worst in people can easily lead to missing out on the whole story.

Napolitano contended, in part, that “[i]nstead of allowing it to die, or helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set about on the most murderous war in American history in which over 750,000 soldiers and civilians — all Americans — died…”

Napolitano’s comments are part of a troubling trend in interpreting the Civil War. In an attempt to seem open-minded and free-thinking, smart people are arguing against the grain. While these antithetical arguments sometimes bring out valid new perspectives, this view of Lincoln and the Civil War does not. Unfortunately, Napolitano is not alone in his “scholasticism.”

On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, the brash host showed his skepticism about lionized personalities as well by asserting that Lincoln was a racist. Maher’s guest, basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabar, stood up for Honest Abe, just as Jon Stewart did against Napolitano. To his credit, Maher didn’t press Abdul-Jabar to reverse his position. However, the opinions expressed by Maher and Napolitano are shared by a lot of educated people who misunderstand Lincoln’s actions and ascribe sinister intentions and dark thoughts to one of America’s greatest heroes.

The problem is one of historical comprehension. Lincoln has been apotheosized in the nearly century and a half since his death. This deification is certainly deserved, but it also causes us to attribute superhuman traits to a real man — a man who faced great odds and triumphed. For those of us who study history, this idolization has caused a backlash.

When we see comments made by Lincoln in his pre-presidential Senate campaign debates with Stephen A. Douglas, we are shocked at their racist nature. When we hear about his desire not to end slavery but only to save the Union, we are hit with a gut punch, left wondering if there have ever been true heroes. Unfortunately, this is where otherwise intelligent men like Maher leave the conversation. The problem with this analysis of history, however, is that it only tells half the story.

Let’s first look at Lincoln’s purported racism. The most frequently cited statement in support of the claim that the Great Emancipator was no better than the people of his time is from Lincoln’s debate with Douglas in Charleston, Illinois, in 1858:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Harsh. It’s easy to see why some view these words as evidence against Lincoln. But these must be viewed in context.

Lincoln was, before anything else, a politician and a legal scholar. And despite our current attitudes, being a politician is not inherently bad. Many political operatives have been able to use their manipulative abilities to do great things for people. Lincoln was one such operative, and he was using his skills as an orator and a debater to slowly move the center position of the argument about slavery closer to the position of the abolitionists’.

Lincoln learned in his legal career that, by not objecting to every detail of an argument, he could more easily win that argument by only clinging to the aspect that was most important. If he conceded the alleged inferiority of the African race and offered that intermarriage should not be permitted, his argument that slavery should be abolished would be viewed as the bare minimum argument, and therefore, the moderate stance.

The future president was also debating with the shining star of the Democratic Party. Douglas, known at the time as the advocate for popular sovereignty, was pushing his philosophy as a way to answer the difficult questions about the expansion of slavery. When states like Kansas applied for statehood, the U.S. Congress was left gridlocked in debate, time and time again, about whether or not slavery should be allowed there. Douglas’ answer was that the inhabitants of the state should be allowed to choose whether or not the “peculiar institution” could exist within their boundaries. At the time, that was considered the moderate position.

Lincoln had to run against this supposedly moderate man while wearing the label of “Republican,” a party which, at the time, was considered a radical and “black” party. Lincoln, like good politicians of today, had to play down his more “radical” viewpoints in order to appeal to a broader population. As such, he said things that could be construed today as anti-black and racist.

When answering Douglas’ charge about Lincoln wanting complete equality for “the negro,” Lincoln answered: “I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.” By stating his view this way, Lincoln was not saying that there was anything wrong with mixed race marriage — though it is doubtful he cared either way — but was instead making Douglas’ complaints seem absurd and out of touch. By changing the terms of the debate, Lincoln was making the abolition of slavery appear to be a more palatable proposal. Lincoln was nothing if not a moderate, and his political decisions and speeches reflect that.

At the time of Lincoln’s political career, one solution to the slavery problem that was advocated strongly by abolitionists was the colonization of American blacks in Africa. Lincoln supported this venture even through the beginning of the Civil War. This support has been seen by some as further proof of Lincoln’s racism. However, this is another case of not understanding context.

Lincoln’s statements were colored by what actions were politically and logistically feasible. His ideas were pragmatic, and abolishing slavery in the United States when the South held such disproportionate power would have been impossible. The colonization proposals were often made by men who wanted abolition, but who realized that unchaining thousands of men and women after lifetimes of brutality and oppression would lead to great civil unrest and, possibly, ethnic war. By simply removing the former slaves from the continent, the horrendous institution could be destroyed, and former slaveholders would not have to fear for their lives.

However, slavery was the backbone of the American economy, especially in the South, and not even the $3 billion it would cost to buy the freedom of the slaves would be able to persuade the men who profited from the blood and sweat of their fellow human beings. Again, Napolitano’s claim that Lincoln could have simply bought the freedom of the African race is completely off the mark, as the president would have been more than happy to perform such an action had it been possible.

Lincoln’s election as president in 1860 caused an enormous backlash from Southern reactionaries despite Lincoln consistently stating that he had intended to leave slavery alone. Lincoln, in fact, believed he was constitutionally bound to defend the institution despite his personal hatred of it.

“Honest Abe” was very much a constitutionalist and intended to follow the document according to his interpretation, even when he didn’t support what he believed it said. As a result, he promised to honor his duty — to citizens of both North and South, meaning that he had to follow even the laws he despised, like the Fugitive Slave Act. Since Lincoln did not acknowledge secession as any form of legitimate act, he considered himself to still be the president of even those states in open rebellion. And, as treason is a crime, Lincoln responded in the way his constitutional oath required of him.

The idea that Lincoln started the Civil War is absurd. With seven states already in active rebellion by the time he took office, Lincoln had to respond quickly and in a way that would give him the advantage. The first step was to simply wait for the Confederacy to become the aggressors. By sending federal aid to Fort Sumter, Lincoln was directly challenging the South’s claim to sovereignty. The Confederates fell for the trap, firing on the Fort, giving the Union the moral edge, and helping to rally Northerners who were still indifferent toward the secession.

Does this tactical maneuver mean that Lincoln should be implicated for starting the war? No. He was acting in a constitutional manner, doing the job he had sworn to do. The South was actively breaking the law through secession, and Lincoln, as chief executive, was responding. In fact, by waiting for the South to shoot first, the president was taking a much more lenient position than could have reasonably been expected.

Lincoln continued to move the country forward through his moderation. It’s true that the “Emancipation Proclamation” actually freed no slaves, but it didn’t have to; it is not as though its inability to be enforced makes it a less remarkable document. The proclamation, along with the more romantic “Gettysburg Address,” changed the war. It gave Southern blacks something to fight for by granting them freedom when the war would end. The proclamation may not have directly freed anyone, but it removed any doubt that the Civil War was about ending slavery — ironically causing the South’s fears to be realized. Further, it made abolition into a reasonable solution for more of the American population, which set the stage for the complete emancipation brought on by the 13th Amendment.

Napolitano’s criticisms of Lincoln are nothing new. It’s easy to take the Great Emancipator’s quotes out of context, like Maher did, and call Lincoln a racist. It’s easy to call Lincoln a warmonger when ratings or provocation are more important than the facts. But to do so is wrong.

Lincoln had a goal in mind and worked slowly toward it using the means available to him as president. By moving slowly, asserting the “moderate” view that the African race was inferior, waiting for the South to fire first, refusing to free slaves for the first few years, then technically freeing none, he opened up the possibilities for change that resulted in three powerful amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as millions of newly freed Americans. Lincoln’s actions changed the world for the better.

If you want to know more about Lincoln, read Gary Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, and watch Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. Pay special attention to the Cabinet meeting scene in which the president explains why a 13th amendment to the Constitution is necessary. That scene, and the movie on the whole, perfectly captures Lincoln’s moderate philosophy of governing.

“I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.”
— Abraham Lincoln, July 10, 1858, Chicago, Illinois.

Star Wars was robbed by Academy in 1977

Star Wars is a cultural phenomenon. Lightsabers, droids, Wookiees, and the Death Star are part of our everyday conversations. The Washington National Cathedral is adorned with a gargoyle of what Americans voted to be the epitome of evil: Darth Vader. And almost every single piece of media made in the last decade, in my experience, contains at least one reference to a Star Wars movie.

Star Wars is easily one of the most successful franchises in world history, yet it is so much more than that. The Star Wars films have inspired generations of young people to dream and to fight back against injustice. They taught us to realize our places as individuals, while remaining integral parts of a much larger universe. The original, historic chapter of the film series, however, is the ultimate example of Academy Award oversight.

Each year, when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards excellence in film, only one movie can take home the top honor: Best Picture. It’s no secret that the Academy naturally favors a certain type of movie. And that is OK. As much as I love Superbad, it’s certainly not the type of movie that should be named Best Picture.

Often, a tremendous work of art is given the nod, much like this year’s 12 Years a Slave. Sometimes, however, the best film of the year gets overlooked in favor of a Hollywood vanity piece or a good movie that will be forgotten in a few years. But some types of movies — in certain genres or with certain characteristics — seem doomed, however good, right from the start.

Seeing that a few comedies have won Best Picture was actually quite jarring. In my time, every winner has been a period piece or a film that raises awareness to illness. These films are often heart-wrenching masterpieces that did not get the proper box office respect. But the Academy’s love affair with these true, or at least almost true, stories neglects original writing and punishes those who make creative films.

Blockbusters are typically big moneymakers. Recently, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com identified 11 features that define a film as a blockbuster. Those 388 films are listed here, beginning with number 62, Jaws; how many Best Picture winners can you pick out? You won’t find many. Only three Best Picture winners have grossed over $200 million domestically (in the United States), and only six winners are in the top 200 domestically grossing films of all-time. Does the Academy have a natural aversion to blockbuster films?

Examine the Best Picture nominee list closely. Star Wars is one of only six science fiction films in eight decades to receive a Best Picture nomination. I understand that science fiction does not typically stand out for nuance or impressively written scripts. In a lot of instances, a science fiction film shouldn’t get the honor of Best Picture. Did The Avengers deserve to win Best Picture? Absolutely not. That doesn’t prevent it from being one of my all-time favorite movies. But I have a special affection for hero stories and movies that stretch my imagination.

Other blockbusters and science fiction films, however, are more than blow-em-up spectacles. Unfortunately, I think the prejudice against genre films has led to some egregious oversights from the Academy. Escapism can create movies just as compelling as reflection can. That brings us back to the original Star Wars film. This masterpiece was a victim of the Academy’s predisposition against films about the extraordinary, and was ultimately passed over for the top award. If Star Wars didn’t win in 1977, I have to ask: can a science fiction movie ever win Best Picture?

Star Wars defied conventional Academy practices by actually receiving a Best Picture nomination in the first place. The film even took home seven trophies, primarily for its innovative approach to filmmaking. But at the end of the night, the statuette for Best Picture was awarded to Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. Don’t get me wrong. Annie Hall is a tremendous film. The movie is hilarious from beginning to end and holds up even after 37 years. It’s a rare older movie that feels like it could have been made today. And it defies awards expectations of its own as a comedy, which is so rare to see honored with an Oscar. It is also not nearly as innovative as Star Wars.

Consider: which movie has made a greater impact on world culture, Annie Hall or Star Wars? I challenge you to name any movie that has made a larger impact than Star Wars. But again, I understand if you disagree about cultural relevance being a factor in naming Best Picture. That is also an impact that cannot be fully measured for many years after a film’s release. So let’s dissect the iconic film for its specific merits.

In my view, a movie should be graded on plot, characters, acting, world building, creativity, innovation, subject matter, and historical relevance. Annie Hall gets high marks for several of these categories, while Star Wars is superior to most films in nearly every one.

Star Wars is, perhaps, the most technically innovative movie of all time. Sure, it doesn’t look like Avatar, but the original movie was made before computers were even a factor in filmmaking. In fact, the production of Star Wars helped to create the computer generated imagery that made movies like Gravity and The Avengers possible.

George Lucas, with very little money available to make his vision come to life, managed to create an entire universe of societies, spacecraft, and sentient beings of peculiar appearance, using only models and costumes. Lucas created the Wookiee, the Jawa, dozens of background alien species, and two legendary droids named C-3PO and R2-D2 without any help from the CGI that would eventually become synonymous with Lucasfilm and its spinoff company, Pixar.

However, these technical leaps don’t necessarily make a film worthy of Best Picture. If they did, Gravity would have been the 2013 winner. Thankfully, it wasn’t, but that’s because the story of Gravity, while interesting, was shallow and lacked any kind of memorable character. That might also be one of the potential weaknesses of Star Wars. Its characters may not be as complex as something from Shakespeare — but they are just as recognizable, if not more so. Are there any movie characters more well known than Luke, Han, Leia, Vader, or the droids?

Again, popularity does not mean a film is necessarily good. I can admit that Obi-Wan never made me cry like Oskar Schindler, and Luke isn’t perhaps as inspiring as Abraham Lincoln. But these characters live in a galaxy different from our own, and yet they still manage to make us feel as though we have joined them on their journey.

Luke Skywalker is offered as a stand-in for the viewer. He is a kid from a simple place looking to leave his world behind him when an unexpected turn of events leads him to the stars. He is motivated by a desire to accomplish something, and he believes the Galactic Empire needs to be brought down. He is a man who longs for his father, aspiring to be like him without even knowing who he was. It is a story familiar to every boy and girl who feels they are destined for greater things.

Luke has to come into his own while learning from his mentor, Ben Kenobi. Ben becomes a surrogate father — not just to Luke, but to those of us who want to believe we can achieve greatness. Ben’s climactic fight with his former protege, Darth Vader, ends with the mentor’s sacrifice before the eyes of his apprentice. Luke then has to rise up and become the new hero the Galaxy needs. It is the advice of his mentor, along with the assistance of his new friend, the roguish Han Solo, plus his newfound faith in his own ability and the world around him that leads Luke to an immeasurable victory as he brings down the planet-destroying Death Star.

Sure, Luke isn’t facing disease or dealing with being a slave, but he’s a young man fighting a literal galaxy of problems, dealing with his inadequacies and yearning to know about his parents and find himself. Perhaps the acting isn’t on par with Daniel Day-Lewis or Gary Oldman (though Oldman had been rumored to be joining the cast of the next Star Wars flick), but there is never a scene in the original movie that takes the audience out of the moment through bad acting or unbelievable sets. What Lucas and the actors did was create an unbelievable world and make it believable. That type of talent should be honored.

The Star Wars films aren’t overtly about the human condition and they don’t raise awareness to some controversial topic, but they do follow a time-honored story structure, one that has been imitated many times since and has been honored in other, non-sci-fi films. Star Wars is about the hero’s journey, a narrative technique that is rooted in ancient mythology.

As explained by mythologist Joseph Campbell, the hero’s journey is the arc that follows a hero from the common to the extraordinary. This hero is often an everyman on an unlikely quest, an epic campaign to overcome the greatest odds. The hero will grow as a person either for surviving the trek or for dying a legend. These stories also often follow the friends of the protagonist as they come into their own and help the hero defeat the great evil. The hero’s journey may not involve human suffering in a way we can always relate to, but that doesn’t make a film any less qualified to be considered the Best Picture of the year.

Perhaps you believe the Best Picture winner should speak to something beyond what appears on the screen. As I said, great movies must have compelling subject matter. A Best Picture winner should teach a lesson and make us think about how we live our lives. Star Wars, with its philosophical underpinnings and questions on war and proper government, accomplishes all of this in spades.

Star Wars is packed with philosophy. Questions of destiny and the great interconnectedness of all life fill the movie from beginning to end. The Force, introduced in the first Star Wars movie, took traits from religions and philosophies across the globe to create a mystical, mythical energy force that binds us and guides us. Fans of Star Wars were inspired by Kenobi to listen to our surroundings and become attuned to the space in which we live. And the Force is just the glue that holds together the enormous world built by Lucas and his crew.

No movie was as thorough as Star Wars in creating an entire universe. Many lines in the 1977 film were carefully crafted to construct a history of this galaxy so different from our own. When speaking to Obi-Wan, Luke casually mentions “The Clone Wars” years before this event would be expounded upon. Obi-Wan’s lines about Luke’s father display an uncertainty that takes on new meaning when the viewer learns the truth in the sequel. What other movie has created lines so rich in content that books could be written for years expanding on just several hours of film?

If a movie is funny, dramatic, original, compelling, and innovative, what else does it take to be given the honor of being called Best Picture? By denying the statue to Star Wars, was the Academy simply making a pretentious statement against a movie that requires such suspension of disbelief? What is the point of movies if not to create new worlds and tell stories that can’t really happen? As much as I am a fan of realism in movies, escapism should not be so marginalized.

Lucas and the folks at Lucasfilm created the world’s most enduring movie, lasting across generations of fans and penetrating our culture in every way. And even if you take away all that has happened since the 1977 release, what you are left with is still a modern myth, a compelling narrative of trial and loss, a rich plethora of characters who take us on a heroic journey to a galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars was the most innovative and influential film of the 20th century. It was unjustly denied its due respect from the Academy by not receiving the award for being the Best Picture of 1977.

Start new movement in WWE: We want Dolph!

Not every professional wrestling fan is the same. Some still watch as if it’s all real. Others insist that while some of it is obviously scripted, there is also plenty that isn’t.

And then there are those fans, like me, who know that the moves hurt, the shows are predetermined, and the performers are incredible athletes and artists. These fans also have a tendency to analyze every single aspect of a professional wrestling show until they no longer enjoy them. I am no different.

Over-analyzing ruins our enjoyment of pro wrestling. We watch every match and get offended when our favorites lose or when we think a bad decision was made. (Though, really, everybody was offended when The Undertaker lost at WrestleMania XXX.) Instead of being impressed by the performance of these amazing athletes, we put too much stock into who gets to win in a fictional fight.

Non-fans look at us and question why we care so much, but the answer isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Despite being predetermined, the amount of money earned by a wrestler is directly connected to his place on the wrestling card and whether or not he wins these fictional matches. So, when Batista returned to WWE to win the Royal Rumble match after being gone for four years, he guaranteed himself hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of dollars for working a WrestleMania main event most fans believed belonged to Daniel Bryan or CM Punk.

In response, the fans took over the shows, shouting at WWE for its mistakes and showing that “the WWE Universe” would not accept the injustice. Though Punk left the company, possibly in protest against the Batista decision, Bryan was rightly given the chance to headline WrestleMania and earn the money, and the moment, he deserved.

Bryan appears to be the leader of a new movement in WWE centered on incredibly talented young workers like Cesaro, the Shield, and Bray Wyatt. I want to be happy with what we are being given, especially since the last few big events have been so good. I’ve even come to consider myself a true fan of professional wrestling again.

However, there is still one person WWE is ignoring, one who deserves another chance to be treated as a top star. That is Dolph Ziggler.

Ziggler is arguably the best or second-best wrestler in WWE; only Bryan can be considered better, though there are others who are close. Every match in which Ziggler competes is an absolute show-stealer. He consistently makes bad wrestlers look great, taking his opponents’ big moves and making it look like he was hit by a Mack truck every time. Viewers believe he is about to win matches when he hits moves that have never before given him a victory simply because he is so great at getting fans invested in every hit, toss, and pin. Ziggler does it all while exuding a cockiness and swagger (not Jack) that is hard to miss. In short, Dolph Ziggler is a true star.

If being successful in professional wrestling is completely dependent on having “the look” and being able to speak well, then Ziggler should be esteemed on the same level as The Rock. Ziggler is in spectacular shape and has been for years. He’s incredibly athletic and boasts a six-pack that could make Channing Tatum jealous. He’s no slouch on the microphone either. Every single time Ziggler is given the chance to speak, he hits it out of the park.

Ziggler is technically a two-time world champion in WWE. Neither of his title reigns, however, holds any significant place in history. His first championship lasted about as long as Triple H’s entrance, and his second was spent with a debilitating concussion. Neither reign gave Ziggler an opportunity to show everyone what he was capable of, and “The Show Off” deserves that chance.

To be clear, I’m not asking for Ziggler to have another title reign anytime soon; I’d like Bryan to remain champion for as long as possible. But I do think Ziggler needs to be put back into a stronger position on the card, eventually to be seen as a credible threat to Bryan or anyone else who may be WWE World Heavyweight Champion.

Ziggler is as popular as a guy without the backing of the machine can be. Just watch his Money in the Bank cash-in last year. The crowd absolutely exploded — and Ziggler was the bad guy.

So what happened? Whose Fruity Pebbles did Dolph urinate in to get the Zack Ryder treatment? For months, Ziggler has been put lower and lower on the card, having his stock completely devalued after an overdue build-up. The fans, despite being vocal in their support for him, have become used to seeing Ziggler lose. Still, WWE managed to treat him worse.

This week on Raw, Ziggler was eliminated from a battle royal by Santino Marella. Using his finisher of an eye poke with a sock puppet. And the crowd booed. Violently. At a comedic character who is usually well-loved.

People are sick of seeing Ziggler buried in favor of those without talent or without futures in professional wrestling. The “Yes! Movement” took off because the audience saw in Bryan an incredible wrestler who worked for his entire life to reach the professional peak, despite the long odds. Now it’s time for us to get behind Ziggler in the same way.

The audience in every city needs to let their voices be heard. Let WWE know that we want Dolph. When we’re told to watch an offensive segment with a little person dressed up as a bull, we need to chant for Dolph. When we’re told to accept Randy Orton versus John Cena again, we need to say no. It’s time to tell WWE that we want Dolph.

Ziggler has worked incredibly hard to get where he is. He’s as talented in the ring or on the mic as anyone else, and he obviously trains hard to keep his body in top condition. Vince McMahon has proven he can be persuaded. Cesaro’s and Bad News Barrett’s current pushes show that. Bryan and Punk are proof that being as good as you can be can actually get you somewhere in WWE. It just requires a lot more work from the fans.

We’ve proven that it can be done: Daniel Bryan is WWE World Heavyweight Champion. Now we have to do it again. For our entertainment, and because he deserves it, tell WWE at every event you attend that WE WANT DOLPH.

One final thought: If you need proof that Dolph Ziggler is incredible, check out any of his matches on WWE Network, specifically, his work with Punk and Bryan. Make sure you tell WWE that I referred you; I could use a new t-shirt.

curiata

provoke your curiosity