Category Archives: comics

Fox’s Gotham must focus on corruption, not fan service

Fox’s latest foray into comics adaptations, the new television series Gotham, premiered to strong ratings this week. The series follows future Police Commissioner James Gordon in his early years on the police force of Batman’s hometown, Gotham City. The early ratings show how strong the Batman franchise is, with the pilot drawing 8 million viewers. Critics seem to enjoy the show as well, believing it could be the strongest hit of the new season.

But Gotham will only live up to the expectations if its writers quickly figure out what they want the show to be. Should it be the story of Jim Gordon and his mission to clean up the city of Gotham and its corrupt police department? Or should the show be about fan service, winking and nodding at the audience while introducing an 8-year-old Clayface?

Gotham’s first episode tried hard to be both, spending most of its first half with pointless sightings of young Catwoman, Poison Ivy, The Riddler, and The Penguin, before settling into a very strong plot in the second half hour. After getting past those useless Easter eggs, Gotham became an intriguing show, with Gordon realizing the police aren’t necessarily the good guys and coming to terms with what needs to be done to survive. Gordon ends the episode with a new mission to extricate the scum from his new home, and the audience is drawn in to join him on his futile mission, despite us knowing that Gordon will ultimately be unsuccessful. (If Gordon did succeed, there would be no need for a now-8-year-old Bruce Wayne to ever don the cape and cowl.) But the struggle to change the corrupt system from within is intriguing in itself and offers a lot of opportunities for future story lines.

Focusing the story of the first episode on the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne was another good choice, as it reminds the viewer of the future in store for Gotham while also allowing Gordon an opportunity to utilize his detective skills. Unlike the extraneous cameos of other Batman characters, Bruce’s early meetings with Gordon are internally consistent and in step with the larger scale mythology due to their personal relationship as well as the prominence of the Wayne family name in Gotham City.

Gotham City, just as much as any of the heroes or villains, has always been its own character within the DC Universe. Gotham is almost always seen in the dark, features gothic architecture, and seems to house the worst of the worst in criminals, politicians, and police officers. Bruce Wayne is a victim of the city, having been traumatized by his parents’ senseless murder at a very young age. As Batman, Bruce sets out every night to fight an endless war on crime, supposedly hoping that his actions will eventually make his city safer. But Gotham always fights back.

Organized crime in the city is controlled by demi-warlords, with battles over turf leading to the deaths of innocent victims all the time. When Batman is able to stop the traditional criminals, he is met by more ludicrous and theatrical challengers who often show signs of poor mental health, likely a direct result of living in a corrupt city with no viable social safety net and, consequently, a complete lack of hope.

The Gotham City that existed before Batman emerged has been explored in comics for years but never as extensively as Fox’s new show promises to do. The potential is intriguing right from the start, but it appears as though the writers are short on ideas, with the first episode showing a stark reliance on characters whose relevance is almost completely dependent on the existence of Batman. Catwoman is not interesting as an 8-year-old pickpocket; she’s interesting as the bad girl who boils Batman’s blood. She is interesting in Frank Miller’s interpretation in Batman: Year One because she is the first civilian to adopt Batman’s idea of theatricality. Poison Ivy is not an intriguing character because her father probably beat her; she is an intriguing character because of her power over plants and her use of toxins to incapacitate her foes. Both characters rely heavily on their sex appeal as weapons, often catching Bruce Wayne and other opponents off guard. These characters in their prepubescence are completely useless to a show that should be about police corruption and moral ambiguity.

Gordon, however, has always been one of the most impressive characters in DC Comics, and is certainly a deserving protagonist. Gordon, created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane, was introduced in Detective Comics #27 — the same first issue as Batman himself — and has been a comic book staple ever since. In a world of vigilantes and super-powered aliens, Gordon is a workaday every man, struggling to make the streets safer. Gordon has no superpowers and, unlike Batman, is not motivated by a personal vendetta or a traumatic experience. Gordon just does the right thing because it is the right thing. He is the incorruptible man in a city that thrives on corruption.

One definition of bravery is that it is not the absence of fear, but the presence of fear and the willingness to overcome it. By that standard, Gordon is a braver man than even Bruce Wayne. Batman does not fear his own death and would unflinchingly sacrifice his life for the betterment of mankind. Gordon, however, has constructed a life and a family and does not live with a death wish like his counterpart and friend. Gordon makes mistakes, like when he cheated on his first wife, and he has suffered great tragedy, including seeing his daughter shot and crippled by The Joker. But he fights on, maintaining his moral compass and owning up to his few errors in judgment. Gordon is so compelling as a hero, in fact, that IGN voted him No. 19 in its list of the Top 100 Comic Book Heroes, placing him higher than Green Arrow, Shazam, and most X-Men.

The writers of Gotham will do well to remember the strength of their lead character and build around him instead of focusing on the exciting, theatrical villains of Batman lore before they actually become exciting, theatrical villains. The police corruption plot, unveiled 28 minutes or so into the first episode, is enough to make the series great. We don’t need to see Selina Kyle pouring milk for cats in back alleys.

Winter Soldier, set for home release, lives up to trailers

Nothing gets a fan excited for a new film like a movie trailer. The three-minute teasers of potential cinematic high points pump our adrenaline and prepare our wallets to lose a few dollars. But trailers are a double-edged sword. Many trailers expose too much of the plot, give away all of the big jokes, or showcase too much of the action.

The trailers for Captain America: The Winter Soldier made many fans reasonably fearful. The film looked too good to be true, with previews promising an action epic with a thrilling political spin and a critical look at the security state. Too many movies that have not lived up to their trailers have made audiences wary, leaving some filmgoers to cautiously anticipate nothing but a popcorn adventure flick. But with Captain America 2, Marvel Studios delivered, as they always do. Despite its runtime of two hours and 15 minutes, the second Cap never slows down, never bores, and never fails to deliver on all of the hype.

It’s easy to look at its trailers and assume that Winter Soldier is just a summer blockbuster — action porn for the short attention span. And if the movie was only about action, it would still be worth the price of admission or the cost of the Blu-ray, being released Tuesday. Winter Soldier is one of the best action movies ever made; the movie is one epic scene after another: Captain America fights a jet and wins. Nick Fury engages in an epic car chase scene that could have come from a Die Hard movie. Black Widow and Cap show their martial arts skills in creative and impressive ways, including one fight with Georges St-Pierre as Batroc. And you can’t forget the explosions. Oh my, the explosions.

But Winter Soldier is so much more. The first scene of the flick establishes that comedy will never be far from a Marvel Studios production. Cap and Black Widow have tremendous dialogue, playing off of the characters’ obvious differences. Both are shown to be so good at what they do that they continue to discuss seemingly petty topics during very dangerous situations. The jokes about Steve Rogers’ advanced age are priceless and show how good-natured the man can be about his life’s great tragedy.

And the Russo brothers direct the compelling narrative about that tragedy. Cap spends the movie adjusting to the changes that occurred in the 70 years since World War II, and while he can be light-hearted about it, he is also confounded by the shades of grey in which the world now operates. There are no mustache-twirling Nazis expounding on their villainous plans — the bad guys have been passing off as heroes for decades, and the real heroes lie to Cap constantly.

Rogers misses the life he lost. Throughout the movie, Cap remembers his fallen comrades and spends time with his former love, Peggy Carter — now in her 90s and seemingly on her deathbed. Captain America realizes, however, that he cannot be defined by his tragedy. Cap is a symbol and a tremendous man: relatable, despite his exceptionalism. Winter Soldier is the story of Rogers realizing his place in this new world, finding new friends and fighting new threats.

When Rogers first meets Sam Wilson, soon to be called The Falcon, they quickly bond. Wilson is a veteran of recent American conflicts, and Cap is able to relate to the man and the horrors he’s suffered. It’s a moment of tremendous symbolism that links America’s current struggles in the Middle East to its long martial history.

Cap and Falcon form a strong friendship, but Rogers finds himself questioning everyone else around him. S.H.I.E.L.D. has been infiltrated by an old enemy, and Cap is unable to tell whom he can trust. We see early on that Black Widow and Fury practice their spy tactics even with their supposed friends. Rogers, a military man who understands the value of trust and its necessity in situations of war, is unable to adapt to the world of spies and surveillance.

The Winter Soldier makes the viewer question the motives of everyone in the movie, especially those who follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe closely. Some S.H.I.E.L.D. agents who are in on the Hydra conspiracy appear in multiple episodes of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television show, and the plot to the movie is directly linked to the show’s entire first season. This is an added bonus to the movie, as it stands alone as a great piece of cinema that is only enriched by knowledge of The First Avenger, The Avengers, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Of course, while the Hydra conspiracy sets up a great plot, it is the mystery of Cap’s rival, the Winter Soldier himself, that intrigued viewers of Captain America 2’s trailers. The combat between the two warriors appeals to anyone who enjoys a good martial arts film. But added to the great fights is the element of mystery. Who is this skilled man?

The Winter Soldier is a mysterious assassin who was formerly associated with the Soviet Union. His history has taken the form of a legend, with sightings of the man dating back decades. Many agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. have dismissed the sightings as rumor, and Cap even calls the tales a ghost story. But the actions taken against Fury prove that the assassin is real. Cap and Black Widow seek the man out for a confrontation, which proves to be anything but disappointing.

The fight scenes are great, the big screen action is incomparable, and the conspiracy involved makes you question everything you know about the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But most importantly, Winter Soldier asks the difficult questions about American ideals and the role of security in the post-9/11 world. Captain America and Fury’s conflicting philosophies regarding national security set the stage for the debate that every American should have for himself.

Casual fans who have only seen a few of Marvel’s movies in the last six years need to check this one out. Winter Soldier is easily the biggest, best, and most important of Marvel’s Phase Two movies, all of which are great. It is Captain America 2, more than any of the other Phase Two works, that alters the world in which the heroes live and sets the stage for the next set of Marvel stories.

More than just Holocaust, Maus addresses fathers, sons

Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man’s parents are all dead. The superheroes live and fight in the memory of their fallen family members. Luke Skywalker grew up without a father, and upon finally meeting the man, he had to fight him to the death in order to save the galaxy. Mythological heroes, more often than not, have fathers who are literal gods, and the heroes must live constantly in the shadows of their superior parents. Whether it is movies, books, television, or mythology, it is a fact that “daddy issues” are among the most common traits of characters across all forms of fiction.

In some stories, this trope exists to allow the main character room to grow, as life without parents forces a young character to grow up quickly and take on a greater burden than would otherwise be expected of him. But the absent parent trope also exists as a reflection of societal realities: many children do grow up without one or more of their parents, but those who are lucky enough to have parents around also often find themselves at odds with those who raised them. Parents, reasonably, have expectations for their children and may assume their offspring will grow up a certain way. In turn, children often grow up seeing their parents as heroes, only to become disillusioned upon discovering their flawed humanity. And for many, even a father who is physically present is often emotionally distant. The absent father in fiction often hits too close to home.

So what happens when a boy aims to discover the true personalities of his parents? Will he be disappointed at their human failings, or proud of their surprising accomplishments? Is the generation gap bridgeable, or does the difference in time make it impossible for us to truly understand the world of our parents?

Maus is the story of Art Spiegelman’s attempt to understand his parents, specifically his father. Spiegelman’s work is a journey to discover the man who always felt distant and the mother who left him long ago.

Maus follows Spiegelman as he tries to learn about his father’s struggle during World War II. Vladek Spiegelman was a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust through resourcefulness and intelligence, even using his skills and likability to make it out of Auschwitz alive. In the graphic novel dramatization of his father’s struggle, Art Spiegelman uses animals to create an extended metaphor, casting the Jews as mice and the Nazis as cats, with other nationalities filling out the animal kingdom.

Instead of simply telling his father’s story, Spiegelman tells about the journey to get the story out of his father — making himself a character in the book, whose own goal is the completion of the book in which he is a part. It sounds confusing, but is actually an impressive storytelling device that makes the book more than just a journey of a man but the story of a man and his son.

The fictionalized Art wants to write a book about his father’s story but often finds himself at odds with the man who raised him. To Art, Vladek is insufferable for his numerous traits that likely developed during his time in Nazi Europe. Vladek is cheap, lies to get his son’s attention, and complains frequently, causing Art to voice his frustration with these traits by noting that his father is acting like the terrible stereotype of Jews prevalent in antisemitic thought. Vladek is not a distant father to Art, but overbearing, and someone to whom is son is unable to relate. But throughout the book, even while the character of Art doesn’t appear to be gaining any new insight into his father, the matter-of-fact writing about their interactions seems to indicate the real-life Art’s greater understanding of his father’s nature. Perhaps writing the book truly helped Art to discover Vladek, even though he was unaware of it at the time.

Chapters often begin with Art and Vladek speaking to one another, with Art growing frustrated as he tries to push his father toward talking about his life in World War II. Art learns about his long-dead brother and mother through his father’s narration, and Spiegelman transposes his words in a way that makes the reader feel as though Vladek is speaking directly to them.

The narrative device used to set up the scenes of Nazi-occupied Poland allows the reader to better understand the humanity of the man who survived Auschwitz. We have all had a parent or grandparent whose quirks and pushiness have gotten on our nerves. Showing this frustrating side of Vladek allows us to relate while we also learn about his heroic triumphs. Vladek survived the concentration camps by using his skills as a worker and his knowledge of the English language. He also flashed his business savvy, often making valuable trades for the necessities of his survival. He even managed to keep his wife protected when they were separated by making friends with the right people. These survival traits also earn Vladek the grudging admiration of his son.

Art experiences a great deal of survivor’s guilt, knowing that he will never have to suffer the way his father did. He takes for granted all that he has been given and, during the time he interviews Vladek, is unable to relate to his father’s story. Art knows that he can never understand his father’s struggle but hopes to at least be able to retell it to others.

There is no point in the story where Art and Vladek reconcile their differences, but the writing makes it clear that Art did ultimately love and respect his father, especially after hearing about his struggle. It appears as though Spiegelman’s realization of who his father was only came about after he began writing Maus. While the story ultimately exists to discuss the horrors of the Holocaust, Maus also does a great job tackling a common issue that is rarely discussed in a real way. Hopefully, those who read the tale will be able to learn its lessons and work harder to understand the trials and quirks of different generations.

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

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.

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.

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.

Batman: The Brave and the Bold pays tribute to Silver Age

Batman: The Brave and the Bold (Cartoon Network)
Where to binge: All three seasons available on Netflix

Since 1992, the Dark Knight Detective has been a television staple, beginning with the ground breaking Batman: The Animated Series and continuing through to Beware the Batman. Outside of and before the Batman-centric cartoons of the past 20 years, Bruce Wayne’s alter ego could be found guest-starring on The New Scooby-Doo Movies or fighting nonsensical crime alongside Aquaman and Wonder Woman as a member of the Justice League as imagined in the sundry Super Friends series.

The common thread that runs through these appearances (well, with the exception of the lighthearted humor of the Super Friends) is that Batman is consistently depicted as a grim avenger of the night, a man who has been consumed by his quest for vengeance against the superstitious and cowardly criminal lot that killed his parents and brought Gotham City to the brink of ruin. Sure, there are moments of deadpan humor, and the occasional bit of outright comedy — what fan of the DC animated universe didn’t love the tongue-in-cheek humor of the Justice League Unlimited episode “This Little Piggy“? — but the overall feel of the character is one of driven, determined seriousness.

Which brings us back to the Super Friends. There was a time in Batman’s history when he was more lighthearted and fun. The Silver Age of Comic Books was a wacky time, with time travel, utterly ridiculous villains, and dozens on dozens of obscure and short-lived heroes with offbeat powers. It was a very different time in comics than today, a time when some stories were being written to children, where the art was still getting its feet under it. The industry was trying to figure out what it would become. It was a time of imagination and exploration, and much of what we consider as the mythos of comic books was established in these formative years.

Batman: The Brave and the Bold was the first, and so far only, animated series to truly embrace the entirety of the wonderful, off-beat, imaginative world of the Silver Age. And it is absolutely brilliant.

This is no small achievement. Following on the heels of the incredibly popular DC animated universe meant that The Brave and the Bold had some big shoes to fill. Had they chosen to play up the darker and edgier elements of the Batman, the show would have felt like a pale imitation of the widely successful Animated Series (a trap that Beware the Batman, the current animated incarnation, is at risk of falling into).

But by choosing to celebrate the madcap fun of the Silver Age, The Brave and the Bold has carved out a unique space in the world of comic-book-inspired animated shows. The animation uses a much brighter color palate than previous animated DC shows. The art feels very much like a four-color comic book. The characters are drawn in a style that smacks of classic Silver Age aesthetics. The occasional computer-generated animation sequence pays tribute to that other famous style of animation, anime. All of these elements come together and form a unique and wonderful look and feel.

The show, which is based on a concept first introduced in the pages of DC Comics, is structured with a short lead-in story that pairs Batman and another hero, usually one of DC’s more obscure characters, in a fight against some evil. These lead-ins serve as character development, allowing the audience to meet many of the show’s recurring characters before they appear in a major storyline. The lead-in story doesn’t usually connect to the rest of the episode, but it is always used to expand the universe.

The show is very episodic, building a world over the course of a season while creating the setup for a two-part grand finale for each season. This “problem of the week” model of storytelling allows the writers to pay tribute to the vast scope of classic comic book storytelling. Episodes range from time-and-space travel, cosmic-level hijinks, classic storyline references, to down and dirty crime drama. Heck, there is even a musical episode, guest-starring none other than Neil Patrick Harris himself.

Voiced by Diedrich Bader, Batman is a deadpan snarker, delivering puns and one-liners that come directly from the Adam West school of Batman acting. The rest of the voice cast includes many well known names (Dee Bradley Baker, John DiMaggio, and many more) voicing just about every major, minor, and throwaway character that has ever graced the pages of a DC comic, along with several created exclusively for the show.

While The Brave and the Bold willingly embraces that Super Friends sense of camp, as well as the Silver Age predilection for storylines that are way over-the-top, it does so with respect and an honest admiration for the classic nature of the characters and the time period that birthed them. What distinguishes The Brave and the Bold is that it treats what the characters will become in the Bronze and Iron Ages of comics with just as much respect. The Brave and the Bold doesn’t just appeal to our retro-comics sensibilities; it uses them as a springboard for innovation.

Just look at how the character of Aquaman got a much-needed shot in the arm here, going from the guy who talks to the fishes to the brave, bombastic, and completely outrageous king of the sea. Or perhaps at the Starro invasion and its study of heroism through the sacrifice and death of B’wana Beast. The episode “Chill of the Night!” is one of the best explorations of the tragic death of Batman’s parents and how it shaped a young Bruce Wayne that has ever been put on the small screen, combining classic and modern Batman sensibilities and Dickensian representations of the Phantom Stranger and the Spectre seeking to claim Batman’s eternal soul.

It’s hard to sell a series to people by talking about its final episode, but I would be remiss not to mention “Mitefall!” Not only is it a zany, hilarious, self-referential adventure romp, but it is a work of love, a good-bye letter to the fans who took a risk on a different kind of Batman show and, in so doing, found themselves rewarded beyond their expectations. In a series where every episode is a love-letter to DC comics, “Mitefall!” is the capstone, the last chance the writers and the cast had to pay tribute to all the great stories of the Silver Age, be they serious or funny, dark or full of laughter, drama or comedy.

All three seasons of Batman: The Brave and the Bold can be streamed on Netflix right now. If you want to take a retro-themed romp through the DC Universe, put aside your preconceptions of what makes a good Batman story and give The Brave and the Bold a watch.

Batman: The Brave and the Bold originally aired from 2008 to 2011 on the Cartoon Network.

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.

Virtues of X-Men: The Last Stand often overlooked

It has always surprised me that fans of the X-Men films really don’t like the third installment, X-Men: The Last Stand. Admitting that you like X-Men 3 is enough to get you sidelong looks from your fellow nerds at best and scathing criticism about your nerd-cred and taste in films at worst. Say that you enjoyed The Last Stand in the company of your fellow comic-book fans at your own risk.

But with X-Men: Days of Future Past making its way to theaters, I felt it was time to revisit the third film in the franchise and talk about what it does right and why I like it. And I don’t mean that I like it in comparison to, say, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a film that deserves the vitriol heaped upon it by fans (a proper destruction of which warrants an article in itself). I think The Last Stand deserves its place among the X-film pantheon and is, in fact, the perfect film to set up the translation of the iconic “Days of Future Past” storyline from page to screen.

There are legitimate criticisms leveled at The Last Stand. I really don’t think Halle Berry is a strong enough actress to pull off her role as Storm, successor to the leadership of the X-Men. James Marsden’s Cyclops and Ben Foster’s Angel were both chronically underused. This is particularly regrettable with regards to Angel, a character that could have given us some serious insight into the world created by this film.

I really think the producers of X3 dropped the ball on Vinnie Jones’ portrayal of the Juggernaut. There were any number of other, just as recognizable, bruisers in the pages of the X-Men comics that would have been easier to translate to the screen. The Juggernaut has a complex relationship with Professor X and, to boot, isn’t even really a mutant; his powers derive instead from the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak. While I like the character in the comics, I don’t think he has a place in the film universe.

The same can be said (and has been by my colleague Charissa) of the incredibly abbreviated version of the Phoenix sagas that begins in X2 and concludes in X3. There is no space travel, no Shi’ar, really none of the defining aspects of that storyline outside of Jean Grey’s incredible psychic powers. But that really doesn’t bother me as much.

That might come as a surprise to you. After all, one of the marks of the true nerd is the desire to be technically correct, because it is the best kind of correct. But if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films despite the innumerable differences between the book and the movies, then you really don’t have a leg to stand on with this complaint. Film and comics are different mediums with different rules.

It would take a lot of time and effort to do an accurate adaptation of the original and Dark Phoenix sagas, and I don’t blame the writers and the director for opting to take a shorter route, less grounded in comic book lore. The Phoenix sagas are cosmic stories, and the X-Men movies have been about human stories: a group of people who are born different, trying to make their way in a world that doesn’t want to treat them as human. X3 director Brett Ratner made the right choice here, and because of that choice, the movie remains thematically consistent with the other entries in the franchise.

Perhaps Dark Phoenix should have been left out of the third film altogether, but I don’t want to dwell on what The Last Stand does wrong. Let’s look instead at what it does right.

First, this movie sets up and connects the sundry X-Men films. Putting aside the atrocious Origins: Wolverine film, the X-Men film series has had two acts so far, and with the release of Days of Future Past, we will be moving on to a third. X3 acts as the bridge from the prequels, through the original trilogy, and into the next era. It introduces elements of the Future Past saga: Trask and the Sentinels show up here, and the plot includes several references to the massive power of mutants, which makes a good connection to the newest film. X3 also segues directly into the rather enjoyable The Wolverine, which is a really fine film that primes Wolverine’s character development for Days of Future Past.

The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is handled wonderfully in The Last Stand, and the groundwork is laid for the first-act prequel X-Men: First Class. While that film would explore the beginnings of the friendship between the two mutant leaders, X3 explores the endings, showing a troubled Professor X who has to live with the consequences of his choices and a Magneto who is finally depicted on screen as the mesmerizing and influential leader of a violent revolution.

This character exploration leads directly to another thing X3 does very well. The actors, on the whole, absolutely nail their characters. I love Kelsey Grammar as Beast (complete with an “Oh, my stars and garters!” line). I think Hugh Jackman is dead-on with his Wolverine. I love the conflicted Professor X and the charismatic and driven Magneto. I love the near endless little shout-outs to the X-Men universe in the form of the extended cast of mutants. And the way Bobby Drake finally lays the smackdown on Pyro is just epic.

The action sequences are top-notch. The fight in Jean Grey’s house, the subtle and effective depiction of Magneto’s convoy takedown, the incredibly rewarding and exciting final conflict — each action sequence is fast and exciting and chockablock full of mutant powers and comic-book references. I particularly enjoyed the Fastball Special (a true X-Men classic) and the casual yet overwhelming power of Magneto. The characters move in a way the evokes the comic book action sequences, and I get a thrill watching Beast somersault through a battlefield or Bobby Drake do the full Iceman transformation.

I get that The Last Stand is not as cerebral as some people might have liked, and it is definitely aiming more for “big-budget action flick” than for “accurate-as-can-be comic book film,” but it retains elements of that intellectual, questioning nature, and it does something that no other film in the X-Men franchise had yet done: It shows, for the first time, that this is a world where there are mutants who aren’t X-Men or members of the Brotherhood. The film portrays the mutant community in a moment of crisis, and that’s what makes it brilliant.

The first two X-Men films are essentially superhero movies. Sure, the superheroes are born with their powers instead of getting them from gamma radiation or power armor or a super soldier serum, but they still pretty much use those powers to fight the bad guy who wants to do bad things. Those films are either conflicts between the Brotherhood and the X-Men or between a small group of mutants and a shadowy government agency. We never get a sense of the rest of mutant-kind.

With the central conflict of The Last Stand revolving around the so-called “mutant cure,” Ratner had a reason to depict the larger mutant community. Thats what makes X3 special. Whereas the other films are full of mutants who are heroes and villains, many of the mutants in The Last Stand are citizens, or students, or politicians, or community activists. We get to see how the cure impacts the world beyond the scope of super-powered combat and action. We get to see how this community reacts to the presence of a drug that can take their mutation away. They wrestle with the implications and challenges of this new reality.

The X-Men provide us with a way to look at how we treat the “Other” and the outsider, the marginalized and the misrepresented. By allowing us to see the broader scope of the mutant community, by turning them into people and not just heroes and villains, we are forced to reckon with the question of how we would use a drug that would change the Other. And when that X-factor that we seek to change is a source of potentially overwhelming power, we have to ask ourselves if we want to change the Other to make them more like us … or to take their power away so they don’t threaten our way of life.

While The Last Stand is far from a deep and philosophical look at how we treat our fellow man, it does a great job of creating an exciting and immersive film that highlights a crucial aspect of the human condition. If you plan on catching Days of Future Past in theaters this weekend, you may want to reacquaint yourself with this movie. You just might like it better the second time around.

curiata

provoke your curiosity