God, I could just die for using that as the title of this post. The internet is full of silly little plays on that word, and none of them work. Luckily for me, I'm lazy and forgetful and so the shame of doing so myself will soon wear off.
Okay, I'm going to take the simple strategy of talking about Watchmen in three separate components; the Good, the Bad, the Decidedly Weird.
The Good
1. The movie is beautiful. Eye candy is everywhere, from the suits and sets to the eerie, will o' the wisp style glow that follows Dr. Manhattan. There's the right amount of neon, the right amount of bad 1980s purple suits and eyeshadow, the incredible contrasts of bright and gloomy in the suits of the old Minutemen in flashbacks...visually, the movie is simply stunning. There are few movies that look this good from start to finish.
2. The opening credit montage, despite the poor music choice (more on that later) was fantastic. I think it is easily my favorite opening credit sequence of all time. I've watched it again a few times online, and some of the subtler touches in it are really excellent (especially the nod to the relationship between Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice).
3. The incidental music, the cues and such, was beautiful and usually perfect.
4. I felt that some of the characters were very well realized; Rorschach was pretty well done (though his extreme right-wing beliefs were mostly glossed over) and Jackie Earl Haley's performance was spot on, unnerving and creepy. Likewise the Comedian, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan's performance, though I felt he certainly did not look young enough in the flashback scenes, something that makeup or CGI could've addressed, I would think. Dr. Manhattan was good, I felt him to be distant and alien, as well he should be. My personal favorite was probably Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, who I felt to be a total schmendrick, and the obvious portal for audience empathy (I felt Dan was, in the movie, clearly the analogue for the comic book fan, for whom life makes the most sense in terms of superheroes and mythologies and perhaps technology).
The Bad
1. Slow motion fight scenes; the movie would've been half an hour shorter if these had just been done in regular time. On a related note...
2. Do they actually have superpowers? Well, the comic book says no, aside from Dr. Manhattan. But then how was Rorschach scrambling up buildings, how were Nite Owl and Silk Spectre breaking backs (at least it looked like it to me) in the alley fight, and most of all, how in the name of Glaucon did Ozymandias do a flying, 12-yard ninja leap with no apparent effort in the Karnak fight against Nite Owl? What the hell? I get that he is the best hand-to-hand combatant of the group, but...really?
3. Um, Silk Spectre totally kills a guy in that alley fight, right? She stuck his knife into the back of his neck...at least that's what it looked like to me. That's not something Silk Spectre would do, I don't think. Furthermore, when did Archie get a gatling gun? I thought it had fire suppression and sound emitters and all those sorts of things...but I don't recall a gatling gun shooting down the water tower to put the flames out. I feel like the movie ramped up the presence of violence, the skills of the characters, and suchlike, perhaps in order to better fit in with the contemporary superhero movie landscape...and I would've been fine with that if it had felt like a commentary on superhero movies instead of just an attempt to blend in. It didn't.
4. Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl is not Bruce Wayne/Batman. He is Ted Kord/Blue Beetle. This is the one aspect of Nite Owl's character I didn't like, in connection with the above. I felt he was changed to resemble Batman more than an original character or Blue Beetle (hence the changing of a sound emitter or fire suppression on Archimedes to a gatling gun).
5. The soundtrack. The entire movie doesn't take place in the 60s; the primary storyline is set in 1985. So then where the hell is the 80s music (aside from a few bars of "99 Luftballons" early on). Why the hell are we hearing Hendrix and Dylan and so forth? This was my only problem with the opening credits...why play a song from 1964 when most of the credits are happening in the 40s? Why not some big band? I didn't understand. It honestly felt like the soundtrack to this movie could've been exchanged with almost any Vietnam war movie, and that's lazy.
6. Matthew Goode was a horrible, horrible actor. Maybe he's been good in the past, maybe he'll be good again, but he was godawful as Ozymandias. What was with the now you see it, now you don't German accent? Why did his consonants keep getting lost? Why did he look like such a nancy boy? I didn't feel that Ozymandias was threatening or a good fighter or world class athlete. I felt like I could take a few swings at that guy and he'd say "not the face! not the face!" and curl up into a ball, and I felt there was no way in hell he could throw the Comedian through a window OR mastermind a cunning, evil, world-changing plot.
7. I'm torn on this; I felt in some scenes Malin Ackerman really came through as Laurie, and in others she fell flat. Her performance was uneven.
8. Ozymandias was far too clusmily foreshadowed as THE VILLAIN!
9. Not sure why Hollis Mason was introduced and not killed off. I think this ties into the fact that the film didn't do a great job of displaying the utter panic on the streets, the belief that nuclear annihilation was truly imminent.
The Decidedly Weird
1. Friend and comrades Robustyoungsoul and TPTT will probably back me up on this, and it was in fact the former who first made me think of this; why the hell would Veidt's plan work this time? Why, the instant Moscow is hit, is whatever is left of the USSR's power structure not pressing the big red button? I can think of no logical reason at all. Wiping out Moscow does not wipe out their ability to launch missiles, surely, and there's nothing about the way it happens that would, logically, make them stop and assess what it was or call the US. I would think they'd just assume the worst had come to pass, the west had unleashed their deadliest weapon (Dr. Manhattan) and so, without further ado, kablooie.
2. Veidt's plan, in this version, would so completely derail the world economy that I can't see it saving the world, I see it destroying it just as thoroughly. As I recall, his plan dusted London, Moscow, Paris, NYC, and Los Angeles. And, once again, as I recall, THIS attack destroyed buildings and property as well as people, whereas the squid in the book projected a "psychic attack" that seemed to only kill people...thus leaving infrastructure and such in place. I could be wrong; I loaned my copy out so I can't doublecheck. At any rate, in this version, I feel Veidt's plan=FAIL.
3. Why should Dr. Manhattan need Veidt's help to solve the world energy crisis? In the book, once again, that is something he has already done, it's over, dealt with. Now this is not a fanboy, nerd-rage, "OMG THEY CHANGED IT!" sort of reaction, but more of a disappointment; by using 'the energy crisis' as cover, it seems to me a futile and unnecessary attempt to make the story relevant to contemporary issues
4. Did Lee Iacocca need to get it between the eyes? Well...maybe. Even so, having Ozymandias use the auto/oil industry execs as human shields during the assassination attempt was a little clumsy and obvious. And again, a fairly transparent way to make things relevant. And yes, part of me cheered to see it happen, but even so...it seemed a little unsubtle for Veidt.
5. I didn't need the raunchy superhero sex. Yes, it was an important factor in the book and we need to know it's happening, but I don't know if we needed to see it quite as thoroughly as we did.
6. Ditto some of the really 'enhanced' violence. I don't recall, in the book, Big Figure's fat henchmen getting his hands cut off with an industrial grinder, I remember him getting his throat slit.
7. On Veidt's huge wall of TV screens, I caught a glimpse of Rambo II, the plot of which is Rambo going back to Vietnam to rescue POWs still held there. But...wait. In this reality, we WON in Vietnam...Dr. Manhattan ended the war a scant few days after intervening. Why would...how would Rambo II even get made? Why would Rambo, the novel, even be written? It wouldn't....none of it makes sense! ARRRGGH, continuity-headache.
8. The Nixon makeup sucked. Nixon has been put on screen plenty of times and can be done well. This was just silly. He looked like a goddamned duckbilled platypus.
Alright, that sums up MY experience of seeing Watchmen. It says something when I come up with 4 points under good, and eight each under "Bad" and "Decidedly Weird." It wasn't terrible, it wasn't a waste of time, I don't want my money back, and I don't think Zack Snyder is a terrible person or even a bad director. I sincerely hope that this movie inspires people to pick up the book, or to pick up comics in general. But I just don't know if it will.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Top 5 Anticipated Movies of 2009
Well, my esteemed blogger colleagues Soul Kerfuffle and PoTT and I have decided we once again need to get on this whole "joint blogging project" some more. So we've decided to go with our "Top 5 Anticipated Movies of 2009." Without further ado...
5. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - Yes, ultimately the first movie pretty much sucked at any point in which robots were not battling each other. And the really puzzling thing was how little screen-time the robots actually got. I sense this will not be a problem in the second movie. Why, do you ask?
Because Michael Bay had a direct hand in writing the screenplay. He expanded an outline into 60 pages during the writer's strike.
That being the case, I expect the movie to feature mostly robots getting blowed up real good, or getting punched so hard their eyes pop out. Freeze frame the moment when Optimus punches Bonecrusher in the first flick; it totally happens. Eye pops right out.
I expect the landscape of Transformers 2 to be positively littered with busted robot eyes.
4. X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Yeah, X-Men 3, uh, failed to live up to its promise. That being said, this looks like an asskicker of a movie, and casting Liev Schrieber as Sabertooth may very well turn out to be a stroke of genius. If nothing else it'll be fun to see Logan kicking ass without a bunch of pansy ass whiner X-Men around him.
3. Watchmen - I don't know if the graphic novel can really be brought to the screen in a way that does it justice. But what kind of comic geek would I be if I didn't go see it? Obviously Zack Snyder's strategy is "slavish devotion to the look and feel of the original" though there are apparently significant changes to the ending. I do know I have to see it because I have to know if the movie can work.
Bonus prediction: I am going to go see this movie, and on the way out I will hear some teenager say "Man, that plot was ripped off from the first season of Heroes." Then the world will go black and I will wake up in jail with bloodstains under my fingernails.
2. The Expendables - IMDB lists this movie as coming out in 2010, but I'm listing it here anyway. Why, do you ask? Let me count the ways.
1. A script written by Sly Stallone featuring a group of badass mercenaries overthrowing the government of an African country at the behest of the CIA.
2. The confirmed cast: Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Randy Couture and Dolph Lundgren as the main members of the team. Rumored casting: Forest Whitaker (as CIA handler) Ben Kingsley, and Mickey Rourke (!!!!!)
3. Did I mention it was written by Stallone?
4. According to script reviewers, the climactic battle scene is simply scripted as "unlike anything ever seen before."
I can hardly wait.
1. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Do I really need to even explain this one? Haven't you all seen my toyblog? And despite all the NERD RAGE surrounding this movie (and believe me, the nerd rage is truly frightening and highly irrational - suffice it to say people think the only way to bring G.I. Joe to the screen is to do so so that it is EXACTLY FRAME FOR FRAME LIKE THE COMIC or EXACTLY FRAME FOR FRAME LIKE THE CARTOON depending on which they liked better as a kid) I am actually kind of optimistic. Is it gonna be great cinema? Hell no. But look, Stephen Summers can direct a fun, solid action flick (I'm thinking more The Mummy than Van Helsing), Chris Eccleston should be a fine villain, Sienna Miller is really, really hot in black leather with guns, and Ray Park is Snake-Eyes. Action, explosions, ninjas, and T&A. What more can a toy collecting nerd like me want?
5. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - Yes, ultimately the first movie pretty much sucked at any point in which robots were not battling each other. And the really puzzling thing was how little screen-time the robots actually got. I sense this will not be a problem in the second movie. Why, do you ask?
Because Michael Bay had a direct hand in writing the screenplay. He expanded an outline into 60 pages during the writer's strike.
That being the case, I expect the movie to feature mostly robots getting blowed up real good, or getting punched so hard their eyes pop out. Freeze frame the moment when Optimus punches Bonecrusher in the first flick; it totally happens. Eye pops right out.
I expect the landscape of Transformers 2 to be positively littered with busted robot eyes.
4. X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Yeah, X-Men 3, uh, failed to live up to its promise. That being said, this looks like an asskicker of a movie, and casting Liev Schrieber as Sabertooth may very well turn out to be a stroke of genius. If nothing else it'll be fun to see Logan kicking ass without a bunch of pansy ass whiner X-Men around him.
3. Watchmen - I don't know if the graphic novel can really be brought to the screen in a way that does it justice. But what kind of comic geek would I be if I didn't go see it? Obviously Zack Snyder's strategy is "slavish devotion to the look and feel of the original" though there are apparently significant changes to the ending. I do know I have to see it because I have to know if the movie can work.
Bonus prediction: I am going to go see this movie, and on the way out I will hear some teenager say "Man, that plot was ripped off from the first season of Heroes." Then the world will go black and I will wake up in jail with bloodstains under my fingernails.
2. The Expendables - IMDB lists this movie as coming out in 2010, but I'm listing it here anyway. Why, do you ask? Let me count the ways.
1. A script written by Sly Stallone featuring a group of badass mercenaries overthrowing the government of an African country at the behest of the CIA.
2. The confirmed cast: Sly Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Randy Couture and Dolph Lundgren as the main members of the team. Rumored casting: Forest Whitaker (as CIA handler) Ben Kingsley, and Mickey Rourke (!!!!!)
3. Did I mention it was written by Stallone?
4. According to script reviewers, the climactic battle scene is simply scripted as "unlike anything ever seen before."
I can hardly wait.
1. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Do I really need to even explain this one? Haven't you all seen my toyblog? And despite all the NERD RAGE surrounding this movie (and believe me, the nerd rage is truly frightening and highly irrational - suffice it to say people think the only way to bring G.I. Joe to the screen is to do so so that it is EXACTLY FRAME FOR FRAME LIKE THE COMIC or EXACTLY FRAME FOR FRAME LIKE THE CARTOON depending on which they liked better as a kid) I am actually kind of optimistic. Is it gonna be great cinema? Hell no. But look, Stephen Summers can direct a fun, solid action flick (I'm thinking more The Mummy than Van Helsing), Chris Eccleston should be a fine villain, Sienna Miller is really, really hot in black leather with guns, and Ray Park is Snake-Eyes. Action, explosions, ninjas, and T&A. What more can a toy collecting nerd like me want?
Monday, December 29, 2008
LastBestAngryMan Man of the Year 2008
In honor of the tenth anniversary of one of the greatest films of all time, the LBAM dubs this man Man of the Year 2008:
Walter Sobchak.
Noted accomplishments:
-Being the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules
-Strictly observes the Sabbath
-Living in the past, due to 3,000 years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax
-Capable of ushering you into a world of pain
-Understands that the ringer cannot look empty
-Survived combat with a worthy fucking enemy
-Knows that pacifism is not something to hide behind
-Helped advance his team to the next Round Robin
-Avid student of political philosophy
-Being the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules
-Strictly observes the Sabbath
-Living in the past, due to 3,000 years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax
-Capable of ushering you into a world of pain
-Understands that the ringer cannot look empty
-Survived combat with a worthy fucking enemy
-Knows that pacifism is not something to hide behind
-Helped advance his team to the next Round Robin
-Avid student of political philosophy
The LBAM salutes you, Walter Sobchak, and all those who understand your profound impact upon the world today.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Best. Death. Ever.
Without doubt, death scenes are the most potentially powerful moments in any piece of fiction, be it film, novel, play, or otherwise. There have been, of course, numerous great death scenes, but there are probably a few that really stand out. So I'm going to go for a Top 5, and the rest of you, as always, are encouraged to submit your comments or suggestions, no matter how laughably wrong they may be. Now, these are not strictly just from film or tv or novels...no genre limitations. The one rule is, no real deaths or death quotes unless they've been fictionalized; otherwise I'd have to say that Robert Emmet would win hands down for his words before his own brutal execution. On to the list.
5. Sydney Carton, A Tale of Two Cities - Melodramatic? Perhaps. But it set the tone and standard by which all later awesome deaths ought to be judged.
Why it's great: He's ensuring the happiness of his unrequited love Lucie by taking the place at execution of the man she does love, Charles Darnay. How fortunate that he and Sydney are dead ringers for one another. Ah, Dickens.
Key line: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."
4. Syrio Forel, A Game of Thrones - Yes, he was a minor character and no, he doesn't belong on the same list as some of these guys, but he appears to kill five armored dudes with a stick. I'm going to repeat that, just so we're clear; Syrio has a stick, filled with lead, used for sword training, and no armor. A bunch of dudes with armor and heavy swords and shields show up to take his student into custody. He kills five of them with a stick. That is sheer, no foolin' badassery, folks.
Why it's great; Well, maybe we don't see him die, and some mooks think he isn't dead (he is, folks) but he unhesitatingly sacrifices himself so his student Arya can escape. And he looks damned cool while doing it.
Key line: "The First Sword of Braavos does not run."
3. Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker - Alright, forget what you think about the prequels or about Ewoks. Vader sacrificed himself to save his son, having found the last bit of good in him that said son was sure was still there. Say what you will about Lucas' writing for the prequels or anything else, but that story element, right there, it is poignant, it is genius, it is wonderful.
Key line: "Just for one...let me look on you...with my own eyes."
2. Boromir, The Lord of the Rings - I'm going to go with Boromir's movie death scene, because it is just that much cooler than his death in the novel. If you're reading this blog, I probably don't have to describe it or tell you why it's great. But I will anyway.
First and foremost, the man is fighting to redeem his honor, which is a tad tarnished at the moment. Secondly, he keeps getting back up and fighting after one, then two orcish arrows are in him. The view of him after the second arrow, how Merry and Pippin, standing nearly defenseless just behind him, slowly come into focus in his vision, thus demonstrating his inspiration to keep fighting...genius.
Why it's great: Do I really have to say so? Because he kicks and unbelievable amount of Uruk-Hai ass? Seriously, some time when you're watching this, freeze frame and count the corpses near where he fell. That's not the work of Gimli, Aragorn, or Legolas...just him. I don't think Pippin or Merry can be credited any kills; Boromir accounted for at least an even twenty, and it might be as high as two dozen. Hell and yes.
Key Line: "Forgive me. I did not see. I have failed you all." and of course; "I would have followed you, my brother; my captain; my king."
If that didn't tear you up at least the first three or four times you watched it, there is no talking to you. I can get the sniffles just thinking about it.
1. Cyrano de Bergerac - Yes, really. Number one. His death is so awesome it covers 3 scenes of the final, fifth act of the play. Let's give a quick summary of facts:
-He has, now for fourteen years, maintained his silence regarding his part in the love affair between Christian, now dead those fourteen years, and Roxane, whom he has loved for even longer.
-He has never compromised his ideals, even though they have led to a live of solitude and poverty.
-He has essentially just been assassinated, with tragic irony, by a lackey dropping a log onto him from an upper storey window. Funny? A little. Sad? absolutely.
-Despite knowing he was dying, he has gone to keep his weekly appointment with Roxane at her cloister, to entertain her with his "Gazette" of court gossip and news.
-Roxane carries the letter he wrote as Christian's farewell to her just before his death in battle, over her heart. Cyrano asks her to let him read it, finally, and she realizes he does in fact have the letter memorized, and wrangles a confession out of him.
Here begin the greatest lines in death scene history, most of which I am skipping:
Roxane: Ah, how many things have died, and how many have now been born! Why were you silent for fourteen years, knowing that he hadn't written that letter, and that the tears on it were yours?
Cyrano: The blood was his.
Later, as he begins to become delirious due to his fractured skull:
Philosopher, scientist, poet, swordsman, musician, aerial traveler, maker of sharp retorts, and lover (not to his advantage!) here lies Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, who was everything, and who was nothing.
Then, finally, as he refuses to let anyone even help him stay on his feet and is staggering around, swinging his sword at his 'enemies,' lies, compromise, prejudice, cowardice, and stupidity, he finally goes down with the following:
Yes, you've robbed me of everything; the laurels of glory, the roses of love! But there's one thing you can't take away from me. When I go to meet God this evening, and doff my hat before the holy gates, my salute will sweep the blue threshold of heaven, because I'll still have one thing intact, without a stain, something I'll take with me in spite of you! You ask me what it is, I'll tell you, it's...my panache.
Beat that. I sure can't.
5. Sydney Carton, A Tale of Two Cities - Melodramatic? Perhaps. But it set the tone and standard by which all later awesome deaths ought to be judged.
Why it's great: He's ensuring the happiness of his unrequited love Lucie by taking the place at execution of the man she does love, Charles Darnay. How fortunate that he and Sydney are dead ringers for one another. Ah, Dickens.
Key line: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."
4. Syrio Forel, A Game of Thrones - Yes, he was a minor character and no, he doesn't belong on the same list as some of these guys, but he appears to kill five armored dudes with a stick. I'm going to repeat that, just so we're clear; Syrio has a stick, filled with lead, used for sword training, and no armor. A bunch of dudes with armor and heavy swords and shields show up to take his student into custody. He kills five of them with a stick. That is sheer, no foolin' badassery, folks.
Why it's great; Well, maybe we don't see him die, and some mooks think he isn't dead (he is, folks) but he unhesitatingly sacrifices himself so his student Arya can escape. And he looks damned cool while doing it.
Key line: "The First Sword of Braavos does not run."
3. Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker - Alright, forget what you think about the prequels or about Ewoks. Vader sacrificed himself to save his son, having found the last bit of good in him that said son was sure was still there. Say what you will about Lucas' writing for the prequels or anything else, but that story element, right there, it is poignant, it is genius, it is wonderful.
Key line: "Just for one...let me look on you...with my own eyes."
2. Boromir, The Lord of the Rings - I'm going to go with Boromir's movie death scene, because it is just that much cooler than his death in the novel. If you're reading this blog, I probably don't have to describe it or tell you why it's great. But I will anyway.
First and foremost, the man is fighting to redeem his honor, which is a tad tarnished at the moment. Secondly, he keeps getting back up and fighting after one, then two orcish arrows are in him. The view of him after the second arrow, how Merry and Pippin, standing nearly defenseless just behind him, slowly come into focus in his vision, thus demonstrating his inspiration to keep fighting...genius.
Why it's great: Do I really have to say so? Because he kicks and unbelievable amount of Uruk-Hai ass? Seriously, some time when you're watching this, freeze frame and count the corpses near where he fell. That's not the work of Gimli, Aragorn, or Legolas...just him. I don't think Pippin or Merry can be credited any kills; Boromir accounted for at least an even twenty, and it might be as high as two dozen. Hell and yes.
Key Line: "Forgive me. I did not see. I have failed you all." and of course; "I would have followed you, my brother; my captain; my king."
If that didn't tear you up at least the first three or four times you watched it, there is no talking to you. I can get the sniffles just thinking about it.
1. Cyrano de Bergerac - Yes, really. Number one. His death is so awesome it covers 3 scenes of the final, fifth act of the play. Let's give a quick summary of facts:
-He has, now for fourteen years, maintained his silence regarding his part in the love affair between Christian, now dead those fourteen years, and Roxane, whom he has loved for even longer.
-He has never compromised his ideals, even though they have led to a live of solitude and poverty.
-He has essentially just been assassinated, with tragic irony, by a lackey dropping a log onto him from an upper storey window. Funny? A little. Sad? absolutely.
-Despite knowing he was dying, he has gone to keep his weekly appointment with Roxane at her cloister, to entertain her with his "Gazette" of court gossip and news.
-Roxane carries the letter he wrote as Christian's farewell to her just before his death in battle, over her heart. Cyrano asks her to let him read it, finally, and she realizes he does in fact have the letter memorized, and wrangles a confession out of him.
Here begin the greatest lines in death scene history, most of which I am skipping:
Roxane: Ah, how many things have died, and how many have now been born! Why were you silent for fourteen years, knowing that he hadn't written that letter, and that the tears on it were yours?
Cyrano: The blood was his.
Later, as he begins to become delirious due to his fractured skull:
Philosopher, scientist, poet, swordsman, musician, aerial traveler, maker of sharp retorts, and lover (not to his advantage!) here lies Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, who was everything, and who was nothing.
Then, finally, as he refuses to let anyone even help him stay on his feet and is staggering around, swinging his sword at his 'enemies,' lies, compromise, prejudice, cowardice, and stupidity, he finally goes down with the following:
Yes, you've robbed me of everything; the laurels of glory, the roses of love! But there's one thing you can't take away from me. When I go to meet God this evening, and doff my hat before the holy gates, my salute will sweep the blue threshold of heaven, because I'll still have one thing intact, without a stain, something I'll take with me in spite of you! You ask me what it is, I'll tell you, it's...my panache.
Beat that. I sure can't.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veteran's Day, Remembrance Day, or "The Great War and Modern Memory Loss."
Today was Veteran's Day. Most of my students were aware of it only due to the fact that their friends at public school had the day off.
None...that's right, none...were aware that "Veteran's Day" began as a way to commemorate The Great War, or World War I.
Now, I'm not sure I can exactly articulate why that bothers me so much, but it does. The lack of knowledge and awareness of that war, and its cultural, historical, political and social significance has long bothered me.
People will tell you, no doubt, that we don't know or care much about that war because the USA's participation in it was minimal. And maybe there is a grain of truth in that somewhere, but no matter the length or breadth of the USA's involvement, the impact of that war on contemporary culture...what and how we think, write, say, how it influenced later events...is enormous.
And most people my age don't know or care, let alone the generation we are raising or educating.
Soon...literally, it could happen any day...firsthand experience of the Great War will pass out of living memory. There are 10 verified veterans of the Great War left, all who served in the Allied Forces; there are no more Central powers veterans. Two of those remaining saw trench warfare.
No doubt their passing will be remarked in Europe. The last 'official' French veteran received a state funeral, as did the final German Army veteran. Will that happen here? I imagine it'll have a one minute piece on the evening news and little else.
I'm not sure why this bothers me so much. I'm not suggesting some kind of "Veteran Death Watch" or anything, I just think it's something folks ought to be aware of, and certainly aren't. And frankly, the certainty that this is unlikely to change makes me too sad to really be angry about it, much less make a joke.
None...that's right, none...were aware that "Veteran's Day" began as a way to commemorate The Great War, or World War I.
Now, I'm not sure I can exactly articulate why that bothers me so much, but it does. The lack of knowledge and awareness of that war, and its cultural, historical, political and social significance has long bothered me.
People will tell you, no doubt, that we don't know or care much about that war because the USA's participation in it was minimal. And maybe there is a grain of truth in that somewhere, but no matter the length or breadth of the USA's involvement, the impact of that war on contemporary culture...what and how we think, write, say, how it influenced later events...is enormous.
And most people my age don't know or care, let alone the generation we are raising or educating.
Soon...literally, it could happen any day...firsthand experience of the Great War will pass out of living memory. There are 10 verified veterans of the Great War left, all who served in the Allied Forces; there are no more Central powers veterans. Two of those remaining saw trench warfare.
No doubt their passing will be remarked in Europe. The last 'official' French veteran received a state funeral, as did the final German Army veteran. Will that happen here? I imagine it'll have a one minute piece on the evening news and little else.
I'm not sure why this bothers me so much. I'm not suggesting some kind of "Veteran Death Watch" or anything, I just think it's something folks ought to be aware of, and certainly aren't. And frankly, the certainty that this is unlikely to change makes me too sad to really be angry about it, much less make a joke.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Stuff I've Learned And Been Angry About Lately
1. There is no safe word when it comes to nasal hair.
2. The greatest contribution to gastronomy by the Germans is not beer, and it's not sausage. It's pickled herring.
3. The Nobel Prize for Literature is probably the most irrelevant of the prizes named Nobel. Try this handy dandy quiz; no fair looking it up on wikipedia. Which of the following writers won the Nobel? Nabokov, Joyce, Proust, Twain, Ibsen, Chekhov, Borges, Greene, Tolstoy, Zola.The answer, as you no doubt know? NONE. That's right. No Nobel prize for the writers of the following; Lolita, Ulysses (almost without question the most important novel of the 20th century. Maybe not the best. But the most important) Remembrance of Things Past, A Doll's House, The Quiet American, Uncle Vanya, Anna Karennina, Aleph...and folks, that's only one book from some of them. Not all. None won a Nobel. And take a look at some of the luminaries who have;
Rudolph Eucken
Romain Rolland (whose main contributions seems to have been serious fetishization and "other-ing" of India)
Henrik Pontoppidan
Grazia Deledda
John Galsworthy
Pearl Buck
Sully Prudhomme
Ever heard of any of them? No? Why, do you ask? Because they're a gaggle of shitty writers, that's why.
4. This one is important.
Stop using the word "rape" to refer to things you don't like. Really. Stop. Gas prices do not "rape" you. Stores charging more than you would like to pay for luxuries like toys are not "raping" you. George Lucas and Steven Speilberg did not "rape your childhood" with any movie they have ever made or will ever make. It trivializes the word. It makes you look like a fucking idiot. It trivializes the pain and the experience of anyone who has ever experienced what the word actually means and the people around them who dealt with the fallout. When used, as it often is, in reference to pop culture items or artifacts that somehow harken back to your childhood, and you feel "aren't as good," it certainly doesn't apply. None of those things are an invasion. Nobody makes you buy a movie ticket, drive an SUV that gets .8 mpg, or spend your disposable income on toys. The incorrect and silly and trivial use of this word is starting to make me worry...even more...about the self-centeredness, nostalgia addiction, and childhood-fetishization of my generation. And this from a self-professed toy collector.
And last, but not least, it's getting the next person that says it in my presence punched. I'm tired of it. That's your warning, world. Do not doubt me.
5. I'm glad the Red Sox are losing. Their fans don't deserve a winner, the city doesn't deserve any more winning, and they're a bunch of assholes. Likewise, I am glad the Dodgers are losing because really, after spending 30 million dollars this year on Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones. Add their 2008 OPS+es together and you get 102. Combined. For 30 million dollars. Any team stupid enough to dole out that kind of scratch for that kind of production doesn't deserve to win a pennant.
There. I know it's not my best work. I've tried to get angry about the election, about the bailout (I know, I know, it needed to happen...but sometime, somebody somewhere ought to reap the whirlwind for the colossal amount of stupidity that brought this economic collapse about. I am convinced only that that someone should not be me or anyone I care about) but I just can't summon the anger. My only real coherent thought about it is that Warren Buffet should be named Grand Poobah of the Country, and the election suspended, until things even out.
2. The greatest contribution to gastronomy by the Germans is not beer, and it's not sausage. It's pickled herring.
3. The Nobel Prize for Literature is probably the most irrelevant of the prizes named Nobel. Try this handy dandy quiz; no fair looking it up on wikipedia. Which of the following writers won the Nobel? Nabokov, Joyce, Proust, Twain, Ibsen, Chekhov, Borges, Greene, Tolstoy, Zola.The answer, as you no doubt know? NONE. That's right. No Nobel prize for the writers of the following; Lolita, Ulysses (almost without question the most important novel of the 20th century. Maybe not the best. But the most important) Remembrance of Things Past, A Doll's House, The Quiet American, Uncle Vanya, Anna Karennina, Aleph...and folks, that's only one book from some of them. Not all. None won a Nobel. And take a look at some of the luminaries who have;
Rudolph Eucken
Romain Rolland (whose main contributions seems to have been serious fetishization and "other-ing" of India)
Henrik Pontoppidan
Grazia Deledda
John Galsworthy
Pearl Buck
Sully Prudhomme
Ever heard of any of them? No? Why, do you ask? Because they're a gaggle of shitty writers, that's why.
4. This one is important.
Stop using the word "rape" to refer to things you don't like. Really. Stop. Gas prices do not "rape" you. Stores charging more than you would like to pay for luxuries like toys are not "raping" you. George Lucas and Steven Speilberg did not "rape your childhood" with any movie they have ever made or will ever make. It trivializes the word. It makes you look like a fucking idiot. It trivializes the pain and the experience of anyone who has ever experienced what the word actually means and the people around them who dealt with the fallout. When used, as it often is, in reference to pop culture items or artifacts that somehow harken back to your childhood, and you feel "aren't as good," it certainly doesn't apply. None of those things are an invasion. Nobody makes you buy a movie ticket, drive an SUV that gets .8 mpg, or spend your disposable income on toys. The incorrect and silly and trivial use of this word is starting to make me worry...even more...about the self-centeredness, nostalgia addiction, and childhood-fetishization of my generation. And this from a self-professed toy collector.
And last, but not least, it's getting the next person that says it in my presence punched. I'm tired of it. That's your warning, world. Do not doubt me.
5. I'm glad the Red Sox are losing. Their fans don't deserve a winner, the city doesn't deserve any more winning, and they're a bunch of assholes. Likewise, I am glad the Dodgers are losing because really, after spending 30 million dollars this year on Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones. Add their 2008 OPS+es together and you get 102. Combined. For 30 million dollars. Any team stupid enough to dole out that kind of scratch for that kind of production doesn't deserve to win a pennant.
There. I know it's not my best work. I've tried to get angry about the election, about the bailout (I know, I know, it needed to happen...but sometime, somebody somewhere ought to reap the whirlwind for the colossal amount of stupidity that brought this economic collapse about. I am convinced only that that someone should not be me or anyone I care about) but I just can't summon the anger. My only real coherent thought about it is that Warren Buffet should be named Grand Poobah of the Country, and the election suspended, until things even out.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Conversion of a Marvel Fanboy
In life, there are a few clear-cut choices one must make. Coke or Pepsi. Scotch or Bourbon. Ginger or Mary-Ann. Star Wars or Star Trek. You cannot sit the fence on these debates. You choose a side and you stick with it. (Incidentally; Coke, Scotch, Ginger, Star Wars). Sure, you might occasionally dally with the other side, or be forced to it when no other option is available...but you know where your heart belongs.
One of these choices is Marvel vs. DC. I'm not talking about their sub-imprints or anything like that, I mean their universes. Their core characters. Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, Captain America and Thor, vs Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the JLA, Green Lantern.
All my life I have instinctively, inevitably chosen Marvel. I loved the X-Men, especially Beast, Colossus, and of course, Wolverine. The Fantastic Four, especially Thing. I identified with these characters. I wanted to be them. I wanted toys that represented them.
And more than that, I scoffed at the DC Universe. Superman? Pshaw. Big stupid boy scout with far too many powers, and the weaknesses? LAME. Wonder Woman? Well, Linda Carter sure was hot, but the "lasso of truth." Gimme a break. And Green Lantern's weakness was yellow? Yellow? Don't even get me started on Captain Marvel (the Shazam Captain Marvel, not the alien Captain Marvel...he was part of the Marvel universe and thus acceptable). Sure, Batman was alright, but most of my exposure to Batman was in the form of the campy 60s TV show (which in retrospect is tolerable only when Julie Newmar appears as Catwoman...hummina hummina...) and the initial Tim Burton Batman films, which I thought were great. Note the past tense "thought" and interpret it literally.
These feelings on the "Marvel vs DC" question crystallized as I grew older. I amassed a large collection of Toybiz's Marvel Legends figures, I dutifully read most of the Marvel Universe big event comic series, I tolerated the "Heroes Reborn" nonsense, and I remained comfortably certain that the X-Men and the Avengers were way cooler than the Teen Titans or the Justice League. I mean, of course Wolverine could kick Batman's ass...it wasn't even a contest. And the Punisher would just mow his ass down, right? No trouble at all.
Then, this past winter, my wife brought home from the library a hard-back collection of Justice League comics titled "Tornado's Path" by Brad Meltzer. I was mired in writing my thesis and reading books on the pedagogy of Creative Writing, so I took one evening off to give DC comics a shot.
When I finished it, I asked the Official Wife of LBAM if the same writer had written anything else in comics. She said, yes, something called Identity Crisis.
I fetched it from the library, read it in a few quick, stunned hours and said "How come nobody ever told me the DCU was this good?" Marvel characters never would've had a running debate about whether it was acceptable to alter a villian's mental capacity. They might have argued about whether killing him was ok...but just messing with his head? No schism there. No no no. Why was this so different? Because these characters acted like heroes. They held themselves to a higher standard of conduct because they had powers. They didn't (all) wander around in emo-drunkenness or tortured loneliness because they were special and the world persecuted them for their special-ness. They could argue about something like that because how they acted mattered to them.
Flash forward to now. I have read Crisis on Infinite Earths, 52, Green Arrow: Quiver, Green Arrow: Year One, Kingdom Come, Trinity, a crap load of Batman books, and am eager to read more. Just last night I watched the final episode of Justice League Unlimited, which is pretty much without doubt the finest cartoon series I have ever seen. I have a small collection of DC Direct figures: the Justice League Green Arrow and Martian Manhunter, and the Trinity series 1 Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman. I may never buy another Marvel Legends figure (more on this in the toyblog later this week, I hope).
What's the key difference? Well, the writing, for sure. The scope, too. The DC Universe appears to live and breath across an entire world (worlds, even), whereas the Marvel Universe, well...that's pretty much New York city, with occasional trips to other countries or planets. These far flung locales serve mostly as a backdrop for superheroes to experience angst and punch things. They lack depth or definition.
But mostly, it's the quality of the current writing. Marvel is blundering into crap at every turn. The big Brand New Day for Spider-Man was an absolute turd sandwich. It's not a "brand new day" when all you did was re-set the character to what he was twenty years ago. Civil War was pretty good, but two issues into Marvel's big summer events of Secret Invasion and Avengers vs Invaders it has become clear that those comics are designed mostly to undo everything that happened in Civil War. Steve Rogers will be alive again one way or another (they've got two options for that). Tony Stark appears to have been a deep-cover, unconscious Skrull Agent for decades? Ditto Spider-Woman, Elektra, and several other heroes...GAH. Just let something happen for pity's sake.
Contrast Final Crisis, where things are changing. Sure, it seems likely that Barry Allen is coming back from the dead, but he's been dead since 1986. Has Marvel ever let a major player rest that long? I guess the point I'm getting at is that Marvel doesn't seem to respect the idea of telling a story in a way that results in anything changing. Sure, DC characters come back from the dead, but take Green Arrow: Quiver, for instance. Yes, Ollie came back from the dead...but he was changed by the experience. He didn't want to live again. He did it because he had to. I guess what I'm getting at is that, in my experience with DC comics so far, stories are told that are more than just cyclical; it isn't the same experience for a character over and over again that always results in the slate being wiped clean, so the character can go back to being what he was in 1976, or 1988, or 2002. I suppose 52 would be a wonderful example of that, by finally bringing the painfully sad story of Elongated Man to a conclusion, by sending Black Adam (I never thought the Egyptian version of Captain Marvel would be even a remotely interesting character) on a totally heartbreaking cycle from villain, to anti-hero struggling with his power, to redemption and back again, by setting up a new Question...I can't wait to reread it in a few months and see what I missed, because I know I missed plenty.
I think the most recent redeeming Marvel comic was Astonishing X-Men, written by Joss Whedon. Yes, the series is going to continue without him, but I'm certain it won't be as good. That was a series with depth and complex characters, with the actual inner nature of characters being revealed (Cyclops in particular goes on a pretty interesting journey in that series...so does Beast). And now Joss's run on it is done, and so is my last reason for remaining a dedicated Marvel fanboy. Sure, I'll still probably drop in the Marvel Universe from time to time, to check in on the favorite characters of my youth. But now that I'm (mostly) grown up, I have found that I simply prefer the DC Universe. At least as of this moment, it is better written, more mature, more complex, more interesting, and full of better stories than Marvel. The people in charge at Marvel simply don't take their characters seriously enough...or value the intelligence of their fans highly enough...to tell good stories anymore.
Maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way, maybe someday I can sit the fence and enjoy both...but for now, I'd much rather live in the DC Universe.
One of these choices is Marvel vs. DC. I'm not talking about their sub-imprints or anything like that, I mean their universes. Their core characters. Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, Captain America and Thor, vs Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the JLA, Green Lantern.
All my life I have instinctively, inevitably chosen Marvel. I loved the X-Men, especially Beast, Colossus, and of course, Wolverine. The Fantastic Four, especially Thing. I identified with these characters. I wanted to be them. I wanted toys that represented them.
And more than that, I scoffed at the DC Universe. Superman? Pshaw. Big stupid boy scout with far too many powers, and the weaknesses? LAME. Wonder Woman? Well, Linda Carter sure was hot, but the "lasso of truth." Gimme a break. And Green Lantern's weakness was yellow? Yellow? Don't even get me started on Captain Marvel (the Shazam Captain Marvel, not the alien Captain Marvel...he was part of the Marvel universe and thus acceptable). Sure, Batman was alright, but most of my exposure to Batman was in the form of the campy 60s TV show (which in retrospect is tolerable only when Julie Newmar appears as Catwoman...hummina hummina...) and the initial Tim Burton Batman films, which I thought were great. Note the past tense "thought" and interpret it literally.
These feelings on the "Marvel vs DC" question crystallized as I grew older. I amassed a large collection of Toybiz's Marvel Legends figures, I dutifully read most of the Marvel Universe big event comic series, I tolerated the "Heroes Reborn" nonsense, and I remained comfortably certain that the X-Men and the Avengers were way cooler than the Teen Titans or the Justice League. I mean, of course Wolverine could kick Batman's ass...it wasn't even a contest. And the Punisher would just mow his ass down, right? No trouble at all.
Then, this past winter, my wife brought home from the library a hard-back collection of Justice League comics titled "Tornado's Path" by Brad Meltzer. I was mired in writing my thesis and reading books on the pedagogy of Creative Writing, so I took one evening off to give DC comics a shot.
When I finished it, I asked the Official Wife of LBAM if the same writer had written anything else in comics. She said, yes, something called Identity Crisis.
I fetched it from the library, read it in a few quick, stunned hours and said "How come nobody ever told me the DCU was this good?" Marvel characters never would've had a running debate about whether it was acceptable to alter a villian's mental capacity. They might have argued about whether killing him was ok...but just messing with his head? No schism there. No no no. Why was this so different? Because these characters acted like heroes. They held themselves to a higher standard of conduct because they had powers. They didn't (all) wander around in emo-drunkenness or tortured loneliness because they were special and the world persecuted them for their special-ness. They could argue about something like that because how they acted mattered to them.
Flash forward to now. I have read Crisis on Infinite Earths, 52, Green Arrow: Quiver, Green Arrow: Year One, Kingdom Come, Trinity, a crap load of Batman books, and am eager to read more. Just last night I watched the final episode of Justice League Unlimited, which is pretty much without doubt the finest cartoon series I have ever seen. I have a small collection of DC Direct figures: the Justice League Green Arrow and Martian Manhunter, and the Trinity series 1 Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman. I may never buy another Marvel Legends figure (more on this in the toyblog later this week, I hope).
What's the key difference? Well, the writing, for sure. The scope, too. The DC Universe appears to live and breath across an entire world (worlds, even), whereas the Marvel Universe, well...that's pretty much New York city, with occasional trips to other countries or planets. These far flung locales serve mostly as a backdrop for superheroes to experience angst and punch things. They lack depth or definition.
But mostly, it's the quality of the current writing. Marvel is blundering into crap at every turn. The big Brand New Day for Spider-Man was an absolute turd sandwich. It's not a "brand new day" when all you did was re-set the character to what he was twenty years ago. Civil War was pretty good, but two issues into Marvel's big summer events of Secret Invasion and Avengers vs Invaders it has become clear that those comics are designed mostly to undo everything that happened in Civil War. Steve Rogers will be alive again one way or another (they've got two options for that). Tony Stark appears to have been a deep-cover, unconscious Skrull Agent for decades? Ditto Spider-Woman, Elektra, and several other heroes...GAH. Just let something happen for pity's sake.
Contrast Final Crisis, where things are changing. Sure, it seems likely that Barry Allen is coming back from the dead, but he's been dead since 1986. Has Marvel ever let a major player rest that long? I guess the point I'm getting at is that Marvel doesn't seem to respect the idea of telling a story in a way that results in anything changing. Sure, DC characters come back from the dead, but take Green Arrow: Quiver, for instance. Yes, Ollie came back from the dead...but he was changed by the experience. He didn't want to live again. He did it because he had to. I guess what I'm getting at is that, in my experience with DC comics so far, stories are told that are more than just cyclical; it isn't the same experience for a character over and over again that always results in the slate being wiped clean, so the character can go back to being what he was in 1976, or 1988, or 2002. I suppose 52 would be a wonderful example of that, by finally bringing the painfully sad story of Elongated Man to a conclusion, by sending Black Adam (I never thought the Egyptian version of Captain Marvel would be even a remotely interesting character) on a totally heartbreaking cycle from villain, to anti-hero struggling with his power, to redemption and back again, by setting up a new Question...I can't wait to reread it in a few months and see what I missed, because I know I missed plenty.
I think the most recent redeeming Marvel comic was Astonishing X-Men, written by Joss Whedon. Yes, the series is going to continue without him, but I'm certain it won't be as good. That was a series with depth and complex characters, with the actual inner nature of characters being revealed (Cyclops in particular goes on a pretty interesting journey in that series...so does Beast). And now Joss's run on it is done, and so is my last reason for remaining a dedicated Marvel fanboy. Sure, I'll still probably drop in the Marvel Universe from time to time, to check in on the favorite characters of my youth. But now that I'm (mostly) grown up, I have found that I simply prefer the DC Universe. At least as of this moment, it is better written, more mature, more complex, more interesting, and full of better stories than Marvel. The people in charge at Marvel simply don't take their characters seriously enough...or value the intelligence of their fans highly enough...to tell good stories anymore.
Maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way, maybe someday I can sit the fence and enjoy both...but for now, I'd much rather live in the DC Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
