What Superman Needed

"Man of Steel" is being either loved by many or hated by many.  I guess I can see why a little.  But we should remember first and foremost:  It's a movie.

What I enjoyed was the fact that the film makers did a true REBOOT of Superman instead of a fanboy film like Superman Returns.  I might add that "Returns" in and of itself wasn't a terrible movie, but Bryan Singer purposely made it a sequel to prior works.  Big mistake.

Hell, that was the biggest problems with the last two Star Trek movies,

But I digress...

There were no "Holy rusted metal, Batman" moment, with a wink and a nod to previous Superman incarnations.  They acted as if the other films never existed but they knew about Superman, that's for sure.

As with many modern-day Hollywood big-budget films, the plot was a little too "busy" for my liking.  They really didn't need anything more than what the Richard Donner films gave us.  The whole subplot of Superman's blood and such was just pointless.

Most every actor in this film has given good performances in past projects but in this they really were bland and could have done way better with better material.  That might be Zach Snyder's Kryptonite (pun intended):  Original work.  He's done well with 300 and Watchmen but he goes almost directly off of the subject matter which were both incredibly strong works.  Here, he sure didn't invent the characters or their back stories but the plot and dialog were all original.

Jonathan Kent saying that Clark "Maybe" should have let the kids die on the school bus?  Hell no...NO NO NO NO NO...

I guess my personal biggest issue was the fact that it was serious, maybe a bit TOO serious.  I understand they're dealing with some serious matters, but hey it's a movie and it's supposed to be a summer popcorn flick.

Some people didn't like the flashbacks but I think they worked to the story's advantage.  Imagine if they didn't have any flashbacks;  then you'd have an action-packed beginning, a LONG middle and we wouldn't have seen Superman for over an hour into the film.

I will say this for the story, I liked how they were able to meld Lois Lane into meeting Kal-El and "GASP"...holy crap...she was able to find him in Kansas!  Gosh, it's like she's some kind of reporter or something.  I was excited about Amy Adams playing Lois and I'm glad that they went for an actress instead of a supermodel, which is what would have happened if Michael Bay directed it.

Michael Shannon did well I think for General Zod, not letting the iconic performance of Terrance Stamp get in the way.  Shannon didn't, at any point, try to emulate Stamp.  This Zod is original and maybe not as iconic but you take him seriously as a baddie.

In Superman 2, Zod merely wanted to rule, he didn't care who really.  But here his motivation is more complex as he loves Krypton and will do anything to protect it.  Granted, he's willing to kill billions....that's where the evil part kicks in.  At the very beginning, he's almost jedi-like in his devotion to his world and not the government that rules it.

I was not blown away by this movie but I think many fanboys/girls are just annoyed that their movie didn't live up to their expectations.  If your points are major like the dialog was wooden, then maybe you have something there.  But please...PLEASE don't nitpick.  I appreciate that the filmmakers had a tremendous task ahead of them and when it comes to Superman, you're looking at the crown jewel of Superhero films.  Being a writer myself, I guess I can appreciate the fact that writing is a difficult craft where anyone can criticize.

I applaud Zach Snyder for getting away from his usual elements of his films, primarily his slow motion fight scenes but he still sucked the color out of the film.

This movie is superior in many ways to prior attempts at Superman, but Richard Donner still remains the best primarily because of its writing.  I would say this film finishes third in that regards.  It passes in many ways with only a few flaws but those flaws are kinda big.  This IS a strong start for what possibly could be a great franchise...I'm not holding my breath though.

One last note:  Lois Lane not having those damn glasses fool her?  HELL YEAH.  Something that always bugged me about the character is that she was always a damn fool in every incarnation...except this one.  Lois might be one of the best elements of this story though she still primarily exists to be the love interest, she does play an important part.

Transformers 4

I hate the Michael Bay Tranformers films.  I hate them for all the reasons people have said but the biggest problem I have had with them is the fact that they're just JUVENILE movies.  They try to be funny and fail miserably.

Transformers can be really cool and they have butchered that which I loved as a kid.

Now they're making part 4 and there are going to have the Dinobots in it even though they really should have appeared sooner.  Swoop was one of my favorites.

Another favorite is appearing, too:  Hound.

Now if this is real then I must express my dislike.  For those Batman fans who didn't like Batman&Robin?  You know how I feel then times FOUR.

Now I will give the films credit in the special effects but if you throw enough money at anything (or have the name Spielberg behind your project) then you'll get the best special effects money can buy.  I will give credit to the films too in regards to the look of the Transformers.  I thought I was going to hate it back it 2007 in the first movie but I actually like the idea how inhuman they look in appearance, the decepitcons especially.

I had so hoped Bay was going to step away from Transformers...

Well hey, Hollywood is rebooting everything, maybe they'll reboot this.

My Name is Kahn

I don't give spoiler alerts.  That's the chance you take when you log online.  Deal with it.

Where the HELL do I begin with Star Trek Into Darkness?

Okay I'll start with what worked.  It started off great and I was happy to see that it was better than the first.  A good, cool plot and lots of drama in regards to Kirk and his career.  There's this guy, a traitor who killed a bunch of people and they need to track him down.  A starfleet admiral wants him dead but Kirk decides to bring him in.

So far, so good.  Then one line ruined it all:

"My name is Kahn."

That's when the movie goes south and doesn't recover.  I had a feeling that was where they were going, with rumors and all, but I wish they hadn't.

I will say this:  At first I thought that Kahn surrendering was a ploy, part of his master plan, like we haven't seen that before.  But in reality he surrendered for legitimate reasons:  saving his crew, his family.  They did that in the Avengers and in Skyfall, glad they didn't do it here.

I'm also happy that they didn't just thrust Carol Marcus and Kirk together.  They sure hinted it at the end and as fans we KNOW what happens but it's a good thing it was only a hint. 

What really sucks is that if you take the name "KAHN" out of it then it could have been a worthy sequel, BETTER than the first.  Oh what could have been.

But it sucks that yet again, the writers and filmmakers decided to go back to the original Trek, to what worked before and try to not necessarily "copy" it...but relive it.  Hey, it was bold but sorry guys, you gambled and it didn't work.

But what angered me about the first Trek (besides the plot holes) was the fact that they used time travel and Leonard Nimoy instead of wiping the slate clean and trying to make something both unique and yet still Star Trek.  Here, I'd prefer that Benedict Cumberbatch just play an original character, an agent of Admiral Marcus.  But noooooo...

Klingons looked pretty cool, though.

Iron Man 3

Saw it twice this weekend, one with family and the other with someone special.

I liked it for the most part though it's not what some fanboys/girls were expecting and there are some spoilers that are already driving some insane.

I will say this:  apparently this story is based loosely on an Iron Man story from years ago and upon hearing some of the specifics of that story, I'm glad that the writers/director took some liberties.

Speaking of which, Shane Black (who might very well have one of the coolest names in history) is to be commended on this being only his second film directing.  Though upon reading his IMDB page, I had NO idea that he wrote the Monster Squad in the '80's.

But still...

He made the movie "darker" for sure but ironically it's the funniest of the three.  Jon Favreau is to be commended on getting the franchise started on the right foot but I think over all the film works.  If you're a fanboy of the comics then you're gonna be pissed.  I think the plot twist in the middle was daring and you didn't see it coming but I don't know if I agree with it.  Would have been better if the Mandarin was who he said he was.

Kind of a shame that Happy has more to do in this film and is quickly dispatched, but at least they didn't kill him off like Cyclops.  Shame that the Iron Patriot gets hardly any screen time and it was kind of pointless that they changed his name.  Also Pepper was a better character than Mary Jane Watson was in the Spidey films but here she is kind of subjected to just being the damsel in distress.  Still a pretty good character all in all.

Now when it comes to movie trilogies to which the over all story arc is not present in all three (Star Wars was in essence one story in three films) then I think film makers would be wise to look at the Iron Man trilogy and learn from what it did right and where it stumbled.  I think it succeeded more than it failed.

Way better than The Dark Knight Rises.

Some Recent Art

Here's some recent art that's been made.

Another brilliant illustration by Kid Kaos

By Tazio Bettin

Jasper drawn by Pokkuti in celebration of my birthday last week

And another gift by Gettar

Great work, everyone!

This Is The End

What the hell is Emma Watson doing with a damn AXE?!

Talk about wanting to shed the role of Hermione.

C'Mon Hollywood

So joblo.com had an interesting article:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/cmon-hollywood-its-time-for-a-proper-female-superhero-film

With the exception of Wonder Woman, most all other female super heroes are based off of a male counterpart:  Supergirl, Batgirl, She Hulk.  Hell, even Catwoman is a spin off of Batman.  Now granted, they're all great characters but it feels that a woman with the big Superman "S" on her chest is merely following, not leading.

My answer to joblo.com's question:  MORGALLA.

Why?  Why not.  She's not following in any one's footsteps.

Morgalla "turns 18" this year.  I created her in 1995 and since 2000 I've grown the character.  It was more of a hobby back then.  But the fact that she is demon, female, young...all of that is secondary.  First rule of making a character:  make them interesting.  I hope I succeeded.

So when it comes to joblo's article, I might point out that for every one Ironman, there is a Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, Spider-Man 3, Batman & Robin, etc.

For every good movie, there is a shitty one.  One should hope first and foremost for a GOOD film.