New era begins, boring one ends in professional wrestling

An era of professional wrestling is about to end, and we never even took the time to like it.

Triple H recently proclaimed a new “Reality Era” — although that will never be accepted by anyone to denote a time period in which Kane still exists. Nonetheless, a change is underway in WWE.

People tend to toss around the word “era” in wrestling pretty freely. The Hogan Era, the New Generation Era, the Attitude Era, the Ruthless Aggression Era, and the PG Era are generally accepted by fans. Most of these “eras” correspond to about a five-year timespan, but if the best way to define an era in professional wrestling is by the talent involved, I would argue that wrestling moves in decade-long cycles.

The eras here defined roughly correspond to WrestleManias, with the next era beginning at WrestleMania 31. They include the 1985-94, kid-friendly, Early WrestleMania Era, the 1995-2004, more mature, Attitude/Aggression Era, and the current era, beginning in 2005, which has been defined by a toned-down in-ring style and mostly interchangeable, bland wrestling characters.

These eras are easy to see in retrospect, with the next generation’s top stars usually debuting in the two years prior to its beginning. Hulk Hogan returned to WWF in 1983 and really hit his stride, along with the company, in 1985 with the first WrestleMania. The next decade was defined by campy storylines and the cheesy antics of the superhero and his villainous opponents. Hogan moved to World Championship Wrestling in 1993, taking his brand of entertainment with him, while WWF stayed the course with a more grounded but still family-friendly champion, Bret Hart, balanced by cartoonish personas such as Doink the Clown, Repo Man, Mantaur, and a silly zombie character called The Undertaker.

And then the wrestling world evolved and a new era began. WrestleMania X was the turning point, acting as the end of one era and the beginning of the next. Hogan was nowhere to be seen. Randy Savage wrestled his last match in WWF. And Hart, the underdog hero, conquered the cartoonish, xenophobia-inspired villain, Yokozuna, in the main event. But the event also saw the first nationally broadcast ladder match between Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon, a match that would come to define much of the next decade.

WrestleMania XI did not bring a huge change in attitude for the company, but the new top stars of the decade were on full display. Ramon, Michaels, and Diesel were all featured prominently. In WCW, 1995 brought the rise of Brian Pillman and his “Loose Cannon” gimmick, the first dose of “realism” in WCW in some time. Within three years, the wrestling world completely changed, pushed by Extreme Championship Wrestling and a growing self-awareness and interconnectedness of the fans in the emerging Internet age. WWE and WCW adopted to the extreme style, with hard-hitting matches and curse-laden interviews. The new era tossed out caricatures in favor of edgy new top stars, headlined by D-Generation X, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and The Rock, and revamped, darker versions of old stars, such as the New World Order, the Crow version of Sting, and a dangerous biker character called The Undertaker.

Even as the Attitude Era and the Monday Night Wars ended in the early 2000s, the stars of the time and the mature nature held on, with the last remnants surfacing at WrestleMania XX. Like the show a decade prior, WrestleMania XX was a turning point. It heavily featured the top stars of the 1995-2004 era, including The Rock, Mick Foley, Bill Goldberg, Booker T, Michaels, and Triple H. But it also presented the WrestleMania debuts of John Cena, Randy Orton, and Batista. As Hart, the sport’s hardest working wrestler, stood tall at the end of WrestleMania X, so did Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit, the sport’s hardest working wrestlers, reign supreme at the end of WrestleMania XX.

And thus began the era which will soon end. WrestleMania 21 gave us Cena and Batista winning world championships and Orton facing off against The Undertaker. A new era of childish storylines with bland characters began. Within the next few years, WWE and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling introduced CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, Samoa Joe, and others who would fill out the roster of top stars for the era. To round out the main event scene, these new headliners were joined by a dangerous zombie character called The Undertaker.

It’s nearly useless to try to put a name to the 2005-2014 era because almost nothing happened. Sure, a few deserving men became world champions, and some of the greatest wrestlers of all time retired, but outside of a few moments with a few true stars, this last decade was more about stagnation rather than innovation.

Yet there is still a sadness that comes with the realization that an era is about to end. Punk, whose WWE career could easily be made into a three-hour highlight video, has vanished. There are rumors that Cena, the company’s standard bearer and an honestly-good-to-great wrestler and megastar, will finally make the move to a Hollywood career now that his injuries are catching up with him. Batista, who was already gone for a few years, has an in-ring career that is limited at best. Orton will stick around, filling in the Triple H role of elder statesman that remained long after he stopped being interesting. Bryan, the sport’s hardest working wrestler, stood tall at the end of WrestleMania XXX, signaling the end of the last era, though he will hopefully stick around long enough to rule WrestleMania again.

The next generation’s top stars are already rising to the top. And unlike any of the prospects of the last eight years, these young guns aren’t being stonewalled from reaching the main event. In fact, the company seems absolutely dead-set on establishing the next generation of headliners. Roman Reigns has become the company’s pet project and is being positioned as the company’s next Cena (which is exactly what the company does not need right now). His former partners in The Shield, Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose, are going to be right there with him at the top of the company, filling out this decade’s triumvirate, as Cena, Orton, and Batista did before them. The rest of the main event scene will change at times over the next 10 years, and some of the new additions may become even bigger stars than the chosen ones, as Punk eclipsed Batista in the last decade. But The Shield will remain the consistent part of WWE’s new era. Joining them, as always, will be the top “attraction” star, a dangerous, unholy character called … Bray Wyatt.

Yes, with the end of The Streak (which I still can’t say aloud), we seem to have finally seen the last of the Last Outlaw. The Undertaker is such a legend that he cannot be defined by eras. The man rose above it all and was among the top stars in three decades. His contributions to professional wrestling can never be matched.

But in the previous era, The Undertaker was an obvious anomaly: the only interesting character in a time of six-pack abs and cliches. The true indication that we are entering a new time in professional wrestling is the change in top prospects. No longer does everyone deemed to have potential look like Shawn O’Hare, Mark Jindrak, Luther Reigns, or a million other supposed “future world champions.” Reigns is big, sure, but he’s being joined by Rollins, who, though in incredible shape, is more well-known for his wrestling ability than his biceps, and Ambrose, who wears a wife-beater and jeans to the ring and looks like the craziest guy to step in the squared circle since Cactus Jack.

And most importantly, there is Wyatt. Wyatt is the first man to have a truly transcendent gimmick since The Undertaker, and that is high praise. Whether or not the gimmick has the staying power of Mark Calaway’s is up to young Windham Rotunda and his ability to adapt. As a member of wrestling royalty and an incredible power on the microphone, Wyatt appears to be here to stay. And Monday Night Raw will be much more interesting because of it.

If this new era of wrestling evolves to fit the characters we see now, as opposed to molding the characters to fit a tame, cookie-cutter idea of what “sports entertainment” should be, then we can expect a tremendous next decade. We are in for an interesting ride with the top of the card featuring new stars in The Shield and Wyatt, plus holdover stars like Orton and Bryan, and a revolving door of other main event talent such as Cesaro, Wade Barrett, and Ziggler — plus the future megastar that is Sami Zayn, whom I predict will see an incredible grassroots movement in his favor in the coming years. WWE just has to be sure to protect these men for the time being, instead of rushing potential money matches. Saving Rollins versus Ambrose was a good start, but it needs to continue.

With few exceptions, usually involving Punk, Bryan, Michaels, and The Undertaker, professional wrestling on the national level has been incredibly dull for the last decade. Hopefully, this new era will change things, and WWE will seize the opportunities available to them with one of the most impressive rosters of talent ever assembled.

Please, WWE, use what you have, and don’t hold back new signings like KENTA and Prince Devitt because you think you’ve already found your franchise player. Let your workers work, and you can begin counting your money again. With the new WWE Network changing the business model, it’s easy to see how we are entering a new era of professional wrestling.

America’s hopsession: Pushing IBU to the limit

Beer lovers: Send up the emergency flares! Light the beacons! Sound the alarms! Did you know we are in the midst of a hops shortage?!

Hops are one of the central ingredients in all beers, essential in giving beer its bitter, floral, and sometimes citrus flavors and aromas. They’ve been a part of the recipe for centuries, but their value has changed over the past 40 years. Ever since 1975, when San Francisco-based craft-brewing pioneer Anchor Brewing Company released its hop-heavy Liberty Ale, craft brewers across the country have competed in making their own version of a hop-heavy, super-aromatic brew.

Moneywatch, a worldwide, economics-focused branch of CBS News, reported in May on the rising price of hops. It seems the “big boys” of the beer industry like Anheuser-Busch tend to hog up the hops sales, and that could translate into a hops war. This is a scary proposition for craft-brew fans, as those beers tend to use more hops and are already pricier than their mass-marketed counterparts.

What is it about hops that has brewers buying up as much of the little flower as possible — and at increasingly high costs to boot?

Tom Acitelli, the author of The Audacity of Hops: The History of America’s Craft Beer Revolution, recently blogged about Anchor’s role in developing an American alternative to European hops. Every hop-heavy beer in America owes something to Anchor’s discovery of the Cascade hop, an American-grown and cultivated hop that packs on the bitterness. In the decades since, many brewers have followed Anchor’s lead, moving the market away from hops grown in just Bavaria and Flanders, and opening up an ever-more-diverse crop of hops. These hops lend a complexity of flavor that can make a beer unique and stand out from a crowd.

Acitelli asserts that America’s obsession with mega-hopped beers has caused it to become a gimmick. As all sales tricks tend to go, once moderately-hopped beers became popular, breweries started to take the trend over the top. Hence, the creation of hop-heavy beers with crazy names like Terrapin Beer Co.’s Hopsecutioner I.P.A., Victory’s Hop Devil, and Ithaca Brewing Co.’s Flower Power I.P.A. There is also a hop-crazy beer called The Audacity of Hops, but it is not directly related to Acitelli’s book.

The bitterness of a beer, imparted by its hops, is measured by International Bitterness Units (IBU). Beers with high IBU will have an extremely noticeable floral aroma and will leave the tongue with a dry, bitter finish. India pale ales are the most readily identified as hop-heavy, but barley wines and stouts are other styles that feature high IBU. Beers with less than 20 IBU will hardly have any noticeable hops flavor: think of your light, wheat beers, like Blue Moon, which only has about 10 IBU. Most beers on the market land somewhere between 20 and 45 IBU; Heineken and Stella Artois, for example, hover in the 25 IBU range.

Anything over 45 IBU is considered hop-heavy. This is a bit shocking when you think that some beers, like Stone’s Ruination I.P.A., are reaching 100 and beyond on the IBU scale. “Ruination” seems an appropriate name for a beer that will more than likely ruin your taste buds for anything that follows it; it’s best to save that one for last call. But Stone does not stand at the pinnacle of mainstream hop peddlers. What may be the Holy Grail for hop lovers, Dogfish Head’s 120 Minute I.P.A., weighs in at a staggering 120 IBU — that is an insane amount of bitterness. Be ready for some mouth puckering after that one, plus it has a 15 to 20 percent ABV, so watch out.

Beers that rank high in IBU are also likely to have the hop flavor sit on the tongue, creating an aftertaste that lingers. Some beer drinkers who don’t know what to expect when indulging in a beer like 120 Minute I.P.A. may want to be cautious on that first sip or else they’re likely to contort their faces into a grotesque grimace, like in those old Keystone Light bitter-beer-face commercials.

So far, all this talk makes the proposition of having a hopped-up beer sound awful, which isn’t always the case. So what is it that attracts brewers to push bitterness to new limits?

Part of it, as CBS Moneywatch stated, is simply cashing in on a trend. Pushing the limits happens in every fad until the market is absolutely oversaturated. And the trend isn’t just confined to the United States either. Rob Willock of the United Kingdom’s Morning Advertiser feels this craze will follow the course of past fads: once the price of hops gets too out of hand, a new movement will arise in the brewing world that focuses heavily on some other ingredient or method of brewing. I mean, remember when Zima and Smirnoff Ice malt beverages were the in-thing 15 to 20 years ago? Zima closed up shop in 2008, and Smirnoffs aren’t exactly flying off the shelf anymore.

There may already be signs of the shift away from hops, as a number of domestic and international brewers are starting to revitalize the old Belgian style of beer known as saison or farmhouse ale. Check out Boulevard Brewing Company’s Saison-Brett or Ommegang’s Hennepin Ale; both are delicious and worthy new-world saisons that pay homage to the Belgian classic Saison DuPont. And breweries worried about the increasing cost of hops can breathe a sigh of relief if they chose to brew a saison, as most fall in the 20 to 35 IBU range.

Another upside to highly-hopped beers is that they drink a lot slower. For most of us, this translates to less beer being drunk in one sitting. Most beers with high IBU are full of flavor to savor and carry a weight that make them hard to chug. Compare that to Keystone Light, which clocks in at a measly 15 IBU with next to no aftertaste: before you know it, you’ve had six or seven of them in a short span of time and you’ll be needing to hail a cab to get home.

Plus, not all hop-heavy beers leave you with an extreme bitterness. Some brewers have very skillfully blended hops, malts, ryes, and wheat to perfect a unique flavor that doesn’t rely on pucker-face or cotton-mouth. While many of the super-hoppy beers on the craft-brewing market will likely only appeal to hop heads, some are easily enjoyed by all types of beer connoisseurs.

I sometimes enjoy the thrill of seeing how much my taste buds can handle, but I will more than likely settle for a beer that is well balanced. Here are some that I personally recommend:

Troubadour Magma Belgian Tripel I.P.A. (50 IBU) — One of my all-time favorites, this wine-like, well-balanced beer employs the dry-hopping method to create a fruit-forward and flowery beer that doesn’t destroy your taste buds.
Dogfish Head 90 Minute I.P.A. (90 IBU) — This beer will have a little more hop punch to it, but it has a creaminess that makes it smooth and balances out the hops so the bitterness doesn’t sit on your tongue in the aftertaste. This beer pairs well with with food and is, according to Esquire Magazine, “quite possibly the best I.P.A. in America.” Ratebeer.com users have even given it a 100 percent rating.
La Chouffe Houblon Dobbelen I.P.A. Tripel (59 IBU) — This beer is not super-hopped and shows a great deal of craftsmanship in balancing the hop flavor of an American I.P.A. with that of a standard Belgian strong ale. Smooth, yet with hints of its power and fruit flavors peeking through, this is a great beer to get you started on the road to higher IBU — if you dare.
Breckenridge 471 Small Batch I.P.A. (70 IBU) — Hailing from Denver, this double I.P.A. is a great example of how a high level of hops can be manipulated from overly bitter to being subtly sweet. Breckenridge uses a blend of three different hops and four sweet malts to balance this beer — definitely worth checking out.

So, if you are a hop head, it’s best to indulge in these potent beers while they last. If the hops war is to begin, you don’t want to wait until the price elevates to experience these treats.

Binging makes TV watching more like reading

Several months ago, I touched on how the way we view television is changing. We are no longer tied to network schedules, and the combination of DVR and online streaming has turned “binge watching” into a full-fledged revolution in media consumption.

Suddenly realize there’s a show you want to start watching, but it’s about to start its fourth season? No problem; chances are you can find every episode of that series somewhere online and catch up before the new season starts. I’ve done that for many shows in the last few years.

But binge watching doesn’t just change the way you consume a certain television series: it creates a whole new experience while you’re watching it. When you watch several installments back to back, you remember all the little details you may have forgotten from one episode to the next if you had waited a full week between them. Binge watching that show then becomes more like reading a book; you can always go on to the next chapter whenever you want.

I’m a big book nerd. I’ll read just about anything I can get my hands on, and I can’t walk out of a bookstore without buying something — even though I already have well over 100 books in my “to-read” pile. With books, I really love the stories and the way they immerse you in another place or time. Binge watching television can have the same effect in a different medium. Settling in on the couch to watch a good series isn’t much different than curling up with a good novel.

When I read a book — especially vividly written fiction — my imagination runs wild. The world of the book becomes real to me. Certain books have more of an effect than others, but each has some sort of impact. The same goes for a really well-written television show. The more you watch, the more it gets in your head, and the characters, along with the world they inhabit, start to feel more and more real.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve found that many of the shows I’ve binge watched are the ones I’ve become more invested in. We formed a bond during those 12 hours spent watching episode after episode. (OK, so 12 hours of television in one sitting is a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture.) In some ways, watching shows like this can almost become an addiction: you plan your day so that you have enough time to squeeze in at least a couple more episodes — because you can’t not watch.

Then, once you’ve finished the series (or all the episodes you have access to), part of you just wants to go back and start them all over, like you do when you finish reading a really good novel. You aren’t ready for it to be over, but there isn’t anything else left, so you might as well start again from the beginning. This happened when I binge watched Doctor Who and Torchwood for the first time years ago, and when I watched the first two seasons of Teen Wolf last summer.

Some people try to tell me rereading books is a waste of time, and the same could go for rewatching television shows. There are so many other options out there, they say, why bother with something you’ve already seen (or read)? I disagree.

I often equate rereading a book with a visit to an old friend. You get to relive all the things you loved, remember all the things you forgot, and sometimes learn things you hadn’t known before. I’m currently in the middle of rereading all the Harry Potter books and am enjoying them just as much as I did the first time around. The same is true when you binge-watch a series you’ve already seen from start to finish. You’re reminded of all the qualities you enjoyed about the series the first time, and you get to experience all your favorite parts over again.

My family and I have been rewatching Gilmore Girls recently, and there are so many things that we had forgotten about the series that some episodes feel like we’re watching them for the first time. And there’s something comforting about revisiting Rory and Lorelai’s adventures. I’ve always wished I could live somewhere like Stars Hollow (though if I actually did, I’d probably go crazy in a week), and I love visiting that town through the show.

There are those who would argue that watching television is not as intellectually stimulating as reading a book in your down time, but those people apparently haven’t tried figuring out what Hurley’s lottery numbers mean on Lost or put thought into any number of other television mysteries.

One way in which binge watching a series could arguable be superior to reading a novel is with those frustrating cliffhangers. The ability to binge watch a show that has a habit of ending in cliffhangers, either at the end of an episode or at the end of a season, means you don’t always have to wait a week (or several months) in between those episodes to see what happens next. Unfortunately, in a series of novels, there’s no way to avoid the big cliffhangers between books unless you wait until the entire series is published before reading.

When each Harry Potter book came out, I started reading and did not stop until the book was finished. I read all 759 pages of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in less than 12 hours. That’s not much different than watching an entire season of television in less than a week. Book readers have been in on this trend for decades; now, binge watching is the new normal for television.

If you’re looking for suggestions on what shows to binge watch, check out our Binge Watch column where we periodically review shows our staff writers have binged.

Legendary Pictures falls far short of its name

It’s hard for me to find a movie objectionable. I enjoyed the new Spider-Man movie. The RoboCop reboot was entertaining. I’m even a strong advocate for the entire Star Wars prequel trilogy.

In fact, Curiata.com has gone to bat for many unpopular movies that have been given a bad rap due to high expectations, nostalgia, or simple unfairness. We’ve defended movies as widely panned as X3: The Last Stand and the Transformers trilogy.

But there is one company that places its logo on every movie I have had an issue with for the last few years. That company is Legendary Pictures.

Legendary Pictures has been around since 2000, and, for most of that time, the company has been in partnership with Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers has made plenty of mistakes on its own, but the company’s partnership with Legendary has truly resulted in nothing but wasted opportunities.

Outside of the movies directed by Christopher Nolan (the Dark Knight trilogy of 2005-2012 and Inception), the list of movies released by Legendary reads like a who’s who of terribly underwhelming attempts at cinema. Included on this list are Sucker Punch, Watchmen, Man of Steel, Pacific Rim, and the new Godzilla. And only three of them can be blamed on Zack Snyder.

Essentially, Legendary Pictures is where effects-driven movies go to receive an awful script. Want to make a movie about a daydreaming sex slave and her anime adventures? Sure, Mr. Snyder, have all the money you need. Just make sure you make it look fake and cartoony while talking about the tragedy of lobotomies. The giant robots with claymores will really drive home the point that sex slavery is terrible.

And, obviously, it’s a smart idea to give Snyder free reign with his movies. 300 was great, after all. Of course, I was 15 when I first saw it, but I’m sure there was nothing about being a teenager that made me think an army of men that made Hulk Hogan look tiny slaying monstrous Persians was cool.

Snyder certainly didn’t ruin The Watchmen by completely missing Alan Moore’s point. Sure, Moore was trying to deconstruct the superhero genre by showing how violent the whole thing would look if it were real, while Snyder made a movie with totally badass slow-motion fight scenes and graphic filters that made it look super-cool — but at least the movie was a word-for-word adaptation of the graphic novel.

And I’m glad Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures were able to learn from the overwhelming fan outrage over the treatment of Watchmen and decided to never use Snyder again. Oh, wait. They handed him the reigns to Superman and all of its sequels, including a Justice League movie.

Nevermind the fact that Man of Steel was awful and, again, completely missed the point. Superman, though he has been a more conflicted character since the 1986 reboot, still does not kill. It is pretty much the only compelling thing about an alien with god-like powers that allow him to do nearly anything he wants. Snyder and his partner in nerd-crime, David S. Goyer, decided it would be better to have Kal-El kill his first opponent ever, as long as he felt really bad about it for seven seconds. Nevermind the thousands, likely millions, of people that he killed when indiscriminately punching General Zod through skyscrapers. I’m sure glad Superman doesn’t value human life or anything.

But Snyder isn’t the only problem with these movies. After all, he had nothing to do with Pacific Rim or the new Godzilla movie. Legendary did, though. You can tell, because all Legendary movies look the same. If a movie has a vague blue-ish or sepia tone, the CGI looks unrealistic, and the plot makes no sense at all — or is completely cliche — it’s a Legendary movie.

Pacific Rim had so much potential to be completely awesome. I am the type of guy who lists Transformers 3 among my favorite movies of all-time, right there with Good Will Hunting. So a movie about giant robots fighting in an insane special-effects spectacle is right up my alley. Pacific Rim was terrible though. The robots looked like cartoons. The kaiju lacked detail. The science made no practical sense. And why did it take two hours of screen time for the heroes to realize their robot could wield a sword that just happened to be able to cut through the skin of the kaiju? You would think the guy from Sons of Anarchy would be a better defender of Earth than that.

The monsters of Pacific Rim looked so fake that I was unsure whether I was watching a new movie or an early cut of Jurassic Park before Spielberg found out what actual dinosaurs looked like. And, of course, it rained the whole time. Just like it does in every Legendary Pictures movie — as if the sheen of the rain will hide the fact that the company put no time into detailing their monsters.

But Legendary has made some progress. The new Godzilla doesn’t look as fake as the kaiju of Pacific Rim. They clearly put time into detailing his scales and grotesque appearance. Too bad they didn’t put the same effort into the enemy M.U.T.O. monsters Godzilla fought. Not that it matters in the end. Even if they all looked like masterpieces out of the Avatar movie, the plot was still terribly cliched and boring.

If you’ve seen one movie about a white military guy fighting some unheard of, existential threat, you’ve seen them all. At least the Transformers movies had Shia LaBeouf, annoying as he is, to balance out all of the one-dimensional military characters. Godzilla does not.

Early on, you’re left with the impression that the human story of Godzilla is going to be about the conflict between the military character and his father, played by Bryan Cranston. Cranston steals the show, making the human element of the movie relatable and tragic. That lasts about 20 minutes. The rest of the movie is about the future Quicksilver trying to stop the monsters so that he can return to his wife, the future Scarlet Witch, and their obligatory military child. Of course, his wife is also a nurse so that she can be vaguely heroic during the giant fight scenes so as to avoid charges of sexism.

And all of this would be fine if we were at least getting an epic monster battle in San Francisco, but we hardly got that. The movie kept cutting away whenever the fight started getting good. What we got instead were a few scenes of Godzilla growling at us. Wow. It makes me long for the days when Ferris Bueller tried to stop the monster from laying eggs in Madison Square Garden. It would certainly be better than watching Kick-Ass fail as much as he did in the actual Kick-Ass movie.

Legendary Pictures, I want to know what’s up. Watchmen, Man of Steel, Pacific Rim, and Godzilla had unlimited potential to be great movies. And I am certainly easy to please. So what went wrong? Why is it that your movies are all about popcorn and explosions when Marvel and Lucasfilm have been able to release much more compelling action-adventure flicks? Do you still subscribe to the idea that big budget movies can’t be smart?

I resent that idea. And I resent your company for your failure to live up to your potential.

I will give Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice a chance to change my mind, but if you somehow manage to make Joel Schumacher’s movies look good by comparison, I promise I will do everything I can to make sure no one ever sees another Legendary movie.

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

Reflecting on a Supernatural convention experience

It’s that time of year again when thousands of fans, nerds, and celebrities descend on San Diego for one of the biggest conventions in the world … and those of us who can’t make it huddle in front of our computer screens, waiting for anything and everything coming out of the San Diego Convention Center.

Attending Comic-Con International in San Diego is a bucket list item for many fan*s while, for others, it’s an annual pilgrimage. I have friends who go every year, and every year I promise myself next year will be the year I go … it just hasn’t worked out yet (but I haven’t given up hope).

While I haven’t had the fortune of attending SDCC, I have had the experience of attending a fan convention. Back in 2009, I traveled to Vancouver, Canada, for a three-day Supernatural Convention, where I met some of the cast of The CW’s horror/fantasy series, as well as some really great fellow fans. For something a little different this week, I thought I’d share some excerpts from my journal of that weekend.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

I got into the hotel around 10 p.m. last night and, after a long day of traveling, I was ready to crash. My roomie for the weekend finally made it around 3 a.m. She had taken a flight into Seattle, then rented a car and drove up from there so we could have a car to drive around in the city. We talked briefly, but as it was 3 in the morning (and I could barely even sit up in bed to greet her), we went to sleep pretty quickly. To be honest, I’m not even entirely sure I had been fully awake, as I cannot remember any of that conversation.

We woke up around 9 and arranged to meet some fellow fans in Fort Langley, a small town outside Vancouver. The convention didn’t officially start until Friday, so we spent the afternoon traveling around the area, visiting locations that had been used while filming the show. For lunch, we stopped at a little café that had stood in as the exterior of a health clinic for an episode in season 2. It was a great day of sight-seeing, not only visiting the places where filming has occurred, but getting to see so much of Vancouver itself, which is beautiful.

While we were exploring Canada Place in Vancouver [the building that housed the Media Center for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games], one of my friends received a text message from another friend who knew where the show was filming RIGHT NOW, and if we were interested, we could head out there. There was no argument from anyone in our group. Of course we were interested!

It was dark by the time we got to New Westminster, the site of the shoot — rather fitting, since half the show takes place at night. The actual filming was taking place inside the garage, so we couldn’t see any of the scenes being shot, but the crew was extremely friendly and answered all our questions. We spent a lot of time chatting with a production assistant who told us tomorrow was her day off from the Supernatural set, but she would be working as an extra on the latest Twilight movie.

One of my favorite moments of the night was when I walked away from the group a little and looked around the corner of a building — and there I saw it: The Metallicar, the 1967 Chevy Impala that’s as much a part of the cast of the show as the actors themselves. I nearly shrieked in excitement and quickly got the attention of the rest of my group. This was the dream come true and proof we were really on the set of a location shoot for Supernatural.

Shortly after we got there, some of my friends got really excited and said they had just seen Jared Padalecki get into an SUV and leave. I was so disappointed I had missed him. However, a little less than an hour later, we overheard the crew members’ walkie-talkies announcing, “That’s a wrap for Jensen.” Words I never thought I’d actually hear in person.

We quickly turned our attention from the car and gathered where we could see the garage door. Sure enough, not long after, Jensen Ackles came out (dressed in a suit — presumably, his character, Dean, was pretending to be an FBI agent today). He quickly got in the waiting vehicle, then leaned over from the passenger seat to smile and wave at us. Our night was officially complete.

If it wasn’t for the fact that I knew I would be getting much closer to Jensen and Jared in a couple days, I could have left Vancouver right then and there a happy girl. Every fan dreams of seeing his or her favorite show filming live and seeing those favorite actors on set; while we didn’t actually get to see any filming tonight, we still had what one of my friends referred to as the “Holy Grail of Fandom,” and I’m inclined to agree.

Friday August 28, 2009

The convention kicked off today and, after attending a few panels during the day, tonight was Karaoke Night. My friends and I managed to get spots down near the stage, which was a good thing because some of the cast members decided to drop in as well! Alona Tal sang Radiohead’s “Creep,” while Aldis Hodge joined a group of fans singing “Don’t Stop Believing,” and Gabe Tigerman sang “Proud Mary” as a duet with a fan. Before the end of the night, I was able to get my picture taken with Gabe, which made me happy because I wasn’t able to purchase a photo op with him. He was such a nice, friendly guy.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

So, apparently we’re staying in the same hotel as the cast of Psych while they’re filming. On our way out to dinner tonight, we bumped into Dulé Hill. Have I mentioned this is the best weekend ever? Seriously.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Today was also Misha Collins day, and the man did not disappoint. He is hilarious in person and the exact opposite of the almost humorless angel he plays on Supernatural. Last night, he sent out a tweet telling attendees to come prepared with eggs, construction paper, and a pen. He started out by asking who had brought their supplies and then went around collecting all the eggs people actually brought (and I suddenly found myself wishing I had taken up the girl behind me on her offer to go out and get a carton of eggs the night before). I can’t remember the exact count, but there were a lot of eggs.

Other guests today included Jake Abel, who will soon be starring in the Percy Jackson movie; he was a lot funnier on stage than I expected as well. I really enjoyed hearing his stories about working with Jared and Jensen, even though he was only on one episode (though we’re all hoping he can come back). Aldis did his Q&A, as well as Travis Wester and AJ Buckly, the infamous Ghostfacers. I love these guys. Even on stage during the Q&A, you couldn’t tell when they were Travis and AJ and when they were playing their Ghostfacer characters. It was hilarious. I’m really hoping they make another appearance soon as well.

On the way upstairs for our photo ops, we walked with Travis and he talked to us the whole way; he’s another extremely friendly guy who doesn’t mind hanging out and spending time with the fans. I love how much everyone who has been a part of this show and participates in the cons — even if they’ve only done one episode — really becomes a part of the family and embraces the nature of this fandom.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Today, the last day of the convention, was the day all of us fans had been waiting for: we got to meet the main stars of Supernatural, Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles. Last night, I was about as successful at sleeping as a four-year-old on Christmas Eve. Jared and Jensen are really great in person, and so gracious with their fans. I loved just standing in the photo op line, watching them interact with each other and the fans. I’m sure spending their days off meeting a bunch of starstruck fans isn’t always ideal, but they really make the most of it and make it a great experience for everyone who came out. I must have practiced what I would say to them a hundred times, but when it was finally my turn to meet them, the only word that came out of my mouth was a very shy sounding “hi.”

Jim Beaver was the last Q&A session of the day, and I’m currently waiting in line for his autograph. I read his book, Life’s That Way, and sobbed all the way through it. He is such an excellent writer, and that book is just so raw and honest in dealing with his wife’s cancer diagnosis and death. He even commented on my review of the book on Facebook and thanked me, which totally made my entire week at the time. So now I’m really excited to meet him and get him to sign my copy of the book.

Monday, August 31, 2009

I finally got my book signed by Jim around midnight last night. Jim’s autograph line took the longest of the entire weekend because he was last and he insisted on being allowed to talk with the fans, give them hugs, and take his time, which really says a lot about what kind of guy he is and how much he appreciates all of us. It was totally worth the wait. I thanked him for taking time to read the review I had written and he personalized my book with a thank you as well. I got a hug from him before leaving, and that marked the end of my first convention experience.

It was one of the greatest experiences of my life to date, and I definitely do not regret anything about this weekend. Looking back over the weekend, one of my favorite memories will be meeting my fellow fans — those whom I met for the first time and those whom I’ve been chatting with online for years. I even bumped into a friend from college whom I didn’t know was a fan. Getting to meet the cast was awesome, but interacting with my fellow Supernatural fans was definitely the best part of the weekend.

Vacationing with kids: It gets better with age

This Martial Mama and her brood have just returned from a week in the Outer Banks, North Carolina. We and several extended family members (12 adults, seven kids, and one dog, in all) rented a spacious, near-the-beach house. Now, my husband and I have only had kids for just under a decade, so what future parenting trials we may undergo are, as yet, unknown to us. However, after a week with kids and parents in various stages, I have some insights about vacationing with wee ones.

Our kids are 6 and 9 years old. On this vacation, they got themselves dressed and fed themselves — the 9-year-old even got her own breakfast together. They helped pick up messes, generally hung out with us, and then pretty much entertained themselves. The other kids on this trip included my half-brother’s two kids (ages 7 and 8), my half-sister’s 5-month-old twin boys (adorable!), and my cousin’s 15-month-old son.

Going to the beach involved setting up our base camp — a bevy of umbrellas, tents, blankets, coolers, and beach toys — before everyone settled in to enjoy the beach. For my husband and me, this meant playtime in the waves with both kids, then a continuation of ocean time for my husband and son, while our daughter dug a “sand trap” a few feet away and I cracked open a book.

As I was reading and keeping half an eye on our daughter, I became aware of my cousin having to constantly manage her 15-month-old. Obviously, this is totally appropriate and necessary on account of how busy toddlers are and how dangerous a huge, surging sea can be for someone who is approximately 22 inches tall, has no fear, and thinks he can swim.

But, as I was reading my book, my cousin said to her son, “Look at Aunt Jenn.” (Technically, I’m his first cousin once removed, but “aunt” is more practical, given the 30-plus-year age gap). “Just look how relaxed she is. She’s reading a book. I would love to just read a book!”

This made me smile as I looked up and saw her, yet again, making a move to keep her little human tornado safe. Then she said to me, “I know, I know … you’ve earned it!”

I told her that, in fact, this was really the first vacation we’ve taken since having kids that we could sort of relax and enjoy ourselves. And I remembered well when our kids were toddlers, how we were never able to just sit down. I also told her that, naturally, this would be the case for her, too, and she could read a book in just a few years. (And, while I didn’t say it out loud, I have earned it!)

My husband and I have experienced five stages of traveling with kids. The infant stage, in my opinion, is one of the easiest times. Sure, babies wake up more frequently at night and sometimes they cry but they also sleep a lot, stay where you put them, and don’t generally care where they are as long as they are fed, changed, and held. This stage might be a little more challenging for parents who bottle-feed, but nursing moms have it easy in this regard. Plus, if you travel with family or close friends, they won’t be able to keep their hands off of a baby, so you will have some free time between feedings and changings.

The toddler stage, unfortunately for my cousin right now, is probably one of the most challenging times to travel with kids. I am pretty sure toddlers cry more than infants because they are constantly hearing the word “No.” They do care where they are, and they require a lot of gear, which they don’t have to carry, pack, and remember. If you forget a critical item (a lovey, special spoon, music box, etc.), your toddler will remember, and the rest of your trip will be much less enjoyable. And don’t even think about trying to buy a replacement, because your toddler will know. Also, no matter if you are home or away, during the toddler stage, you are a prisoner to the morning and afternoon naps. So, spending a whole day anywhere away from a sleeping space is out of the question.

The preschool stage is fun if you go to a super-kid-friendly place. (But not too much of a kid-friendly place, like anywhere that your preschoolers will have to wait excessively long to enjoy an activity. If they have to wait and watch other kids having fun, you are pretty much guaranteed a meltdown of epic proportions.) At this stage, a morning nap may be a thing of the past, but the afternoon nap is still critical. So, during this phase, plan to get to things early, and plan to leave before nap time. This is usually a stage when you can go out to (an early) dinner pretty much anywhere, excluding very formal or fancy restaurants. My point is, just because you have toddlers, you are not restricted to Friendly’s or McDonald’s for your dining needs.

Traveling with young kids (ages 5 to 7) gets even easier. Even though young kids may have an earlier bedtime, naps are probably totally gone by now. You can go to places you enjoy, as long as you keep extended stops to a minimum (no pondering that blank canvas at the Museum of Modern Art for longer than 15 seconds) and keep your kid(s) engaged. Talk to them about the things they are seeing, and ask them focused questions. For instance, instead of saying, “Isn’t this cool?!” you might try, “What would you paint on this blank canvas?” Young kids aren’t going to have the stamina or the patience that you have for your interests, but they tend to be tolerant. It is wise, during this time, to try and schedule some kid-friendly activities in between your antique hunting and gallery gazing.

My husband and I are now in the full-fledged “Traveling with Kids” stage, which I would categorize as involving children between the ages of 7 and 12-ish. Our son is on the very bottom of this age range (almost 7) and our daughter is nearing age 10. They are joys to travel with. They are extremely tolerant of long car rides. When they are sick of talking to us, they will draw, read a book, watch a movie, or play games on their Kindles. It took us 12 hours to drive home from our vacation this year, and I can tell you that the kids did way better than I did! Traveling, to them, is a grand adventure.

Our kids enjoy museums, tours, and sightseeing a whole lot more than they did a few years ago. They understand things, make connections, and ask questions. Also, they are far more likely to stop and really experience something before feeling the need to run to the next fun thing. There actually were a few times on this trip when we got bored with something before the kids did, and that is definitely a first for us.

I’m not going to lie — it is easier to travel with kids who can pull their own luggage and read to themselves. But traveling with any kid, big or small, while it maybe not as leisurely as it was before kids, can be a really fun experience, too. And it might not be as bad as you think.

What We’re Pouring: Selections from Bell’s Brewery

I’ve been on a Bell’s Brewery kick this summer. Ever since I first had the Oberon Ale. an American pale wheat ale, back in April, I knew I’d be looking into all this brewery had to offer.

Bell’s Brewery is based out of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and is one of the earlier craft breweries in the United States to make it big and have its product made available from coast to coast. Like most larger breweries, Bell’s has staple brews that are available year-round, but also offers a different beer for each season alongside a slew of specialties, some available only on draft.

I picked up a variety case of Bell’s core brands at Red Land Beer & Soda Outlet and sampled a few other offerings over the past few weeks. Click through below for my impressions:

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.

Lobster feast made better with Iberian wines

Lobster: that quintessential luxury seafood dish that takes center stage however it’s served, whether it be alongside a choice cut of steak, mayo’ed up and served in a roll, or just by itself, cracked open and ready to dip and dab to buttery perfection. Lobster can have its rightful status as the great meal it is. How could it be any better?

Well, by pairing it with a crisp, mineral-heavy wine, of course. I indulged in a trio of lobster dishes and paired some great wines from Spain and Portugal, two countries that have rapidly become favorite go-tos for great wine.

It has become a summer tradition of mine to treat my family (a la Parks and Recreation’s Tom Haverford’s “Treat yo’ self!” mantra) to a slew of yummy lobster dishes. The best thing to do is buy a bunch of lobsters all at once, checking the local grocery stores and markets for when the deals hit, and plan out a number of dishes to have throughout the week with that all-delicious crustacean.

I started by purchasing seven Maine lobsters, all between 1.25 and 1.75 pounds, live from a local grocer. If you’ve never purchased live lobster before, be sure that you plan to cook and eat them that same day. With lobster, freshness is of absolute importance. However, following some simple tips, you can keep a lobster alive and healthy for up to 48 hours, should you need to. I recommend putting the lobster in a large cooler, wrapped in damp newspaper (or better yet, cardboard, as it’s more durable). Put a little bit of ice in the cooler. Keeping the lobsters cold will make them docile and easy to handle, slowing them down.

Get a large pot, like a turkey fryer, and boil the necessary amount of water, which is obviously dependent on the amount of lobsters you plan to boil. I don’t follow any particular recipe for this part. Chop up a couple of lemons, quarter 3 to 4 onions, chunk-chop some celery stalk, and toss it in the water. Season to your heart’s delight with Old Bay.

Once that water is at a good boil, submerge your lobsters alive … yes, alive. If you have something against cruelty to animals, get someone else to do this part and just close your eyes and bite your lip. You don’t want to kill the lobsters beforehand, but should one accidentally die, be sure to cook it as soon as possible. Lobsters that die prior to cooking have a reputation for being slimy and gross.

Boil for about 12 minutes; the more lobsters in the pot, the longer it may take.

Meal #1: Boiled whole lobster

This was a simple one. Pull the lobster out of the pot, cool it down at least enough to handle (the critters will keep cooking in the shell, I’ve found) by running some cool water over the lobster. Put it on a plate, crack, and begin the feast.

To accompany this meal, I chilled a bottle of 2012 Ulacia Txakolina and opened just prior to serving. The wine, by itself, seems like it would be a great aperitif, but it also was a perfect pairing with the lobster. It has a low alcohol level of 11 percent, so it is not overbearing relative to the flavor of the lobster, which I obviously wanted to savor.

The wine is made from a blend of Hondarrabi Zuri and Hondarribi Beltza, from the Getariako Txakolina region of northern Spain in Basque County. If you’ve never heard of those grapes before, no worries. They produce wines that are very similar to the wines of Vinho Verde, a more well-known wine region in northern Portugal that is across the border from Galicia (and which we discussed last week).

This particular wine had a great herbal and floral aroma with high carbonation, near sparkling, so it danced nicely on the tongue. There was a bit of acidity up front, but what I liked most was the minerality that matched nicely with the natural saltiness of the seafood. The wine had a dry and subtle finish that was truly refreshing. I give it a B+. You can find this wine at a great price ($15 is what I paid), and it’s meant to drink young, so buy up and have often!

Three lobsters down, four left. What to do? That night, I cleaned out the other lobsters, pulling all the usable meat and storing it in air-tight dishes and refrigerating.

Meal #2: The now-infamous Paula Deen’s lobster rolls

If you’ve never had a true lobster roll, march yourself to New England and indulge in one the best treats you can give yourself. While Paula Deen is loudly and proudly Southern, I found her recipe to be very reminiscent of the lobster rolls I’ve had in Maine and Massachusetts. Here’s her recipe. If the lobster meat has already been shelled, this is an easy-as-pie meal.

For this, I decided to stick with a wine that was similar to what I had the night before, but i jumped the border to Portugal and went with a $14 bottle of 2012 Niepoort Dócil from Vinho Verde. It’s made of 100% Loureira grape, with a perfume-heavy floral scent that is very attractive and pale yellow in tone, even somewhat opaque. The wine had noticeably more citrus up front than the previous night’s wine, but it gave way to the same granite-like minerality and a crisp finish.

Also at 11 percent alcohol, it was an easy-drinking wine that made for a pleasant chilled, lunchtime beverage. I could taste more of the steel in this one (it being steel-fermented) in the aftertaste, which was not something I personally favored. I didn’t get this from some other wines that were also steel-fermented, so it was a curious afterthought. A solid B rating.

Meal #3: The even more infamous (maybe) Martha Stewart’s Lobster Newburg

This is a great dinner meal to accompany other seafood sides, like spiced shrimp skewers or a filet of your favorite fish, along with some Old Bay cheddar biscuits. Here’s the easy to follow recipe. I followed it pretty much to a tee, but I made sure to stick with the Iberian wine theme and used a nice, medium-dry Spanish Amontillado sherry in the recipe. I had a bottle of non-vintage Valdespino Tio Diego Amontillado on my wine rack that has a nutty and creamy persistence to it, so I used that; this sherry was also good for sipping on after dinner.

During the meal, we drank a slightly chilled bottle of 2009 Peza do Rei Blanco, produced by the Adega Cachin winery, with grapes grown in Ribeira Sacra, Galicia, Spain. The wine makes use of a number of varietals in a blend of 70 percent Godello, 20 percent Treixadura, and 10 percent Albariño. I feel like this wine, less yellow and almost clear in color, was the most complex and added the most as a lobster accompaniment.

The Peza do Rei had a high dose of minerality and gave off an almost charcoal-like flavor that made me think it would match well with grilled seafood (something to remember the next time I grill some flounder or swordfish!). The acidity is not as potent in this wine, but it’s there in the form of tropical fruit hints. Like the others, it ended with a refreshing crispness that cleansed the palate. A great wine, A- rating, and at only $19, a best buy. This vintage might be at its peak, but the wine producer has already released 2010s and 2011s, so there is that to look forward to.

All in all, my two-day lobster feast was made all the better by trying some great wine offerings from northern Spain and Portugal. The Iberian peninsula’s white wines and seafood seem to pair extremely well.

curiata

provoke your curiosity