Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Four things

1.) Remember the other night when I shared that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle drawing Cleveland artist John G. did for a flier about a weird Melt sandwich? Well, here's another, older one he did, this one featuring Donatello instead of Leonardo.

Yes sir, I sure do like those John G. ninja turtles. The only way they could be better is if they were black and white. And on the cover of a comic book, instead of a poster about a sandwich.

2.) Speaking of things I wrote about, last night I discussed Downtown Bookworks' DC-themed Super Heroes: My First Dictionary at some length, and expressed my desire to know the context of the image used to define the word "kiss." Jacob T. Levy responded by linking to the above image. I'm assuming Dick is saying that Batgirl should give up crime-fighting and stick to her day job, whatever it is (because he doesn't know what it is at this point), but man, it sure sounds like he's coming on to her there, doesn't it? Or am I just reading too much into the Washington Monument on the skyline...?

3.) On the subject of things I did not right about, but other people did, how about Superman #38, huh? I thought it sort of clever that the big events of that particular issue that DC went out of their way to publicize—Superman's new power, and his slightly different costume which looks like it may have been mis-colored in this issue, if that is it—were not really the big change to the status quo, which comes at the very end of the book. That plot point struck me as a much bigger deal than Superman's new, not-that-interesting-or-exciting-of-a-power. I think because DC made a big deal out of the other stuff though, the event at the end was an even bigger surprise, and caught me much more off guard than it otherwise would have. So, that was some all-around effective marketing, I think.

Mike Sterling, whose blog post on this subject that last link directs you to, is right though. I'm pretty sure that the thing Superman does at the end of Superman #38 is something he's never before done in his 75-ish-year history (mainly because he's a dick), but because this Superman is still only a little over three-years-old, and so much has changed about him and his world so haphazardly in that time, I still don't have a sense of who he is and what his mileu is like, so it's not as powerful a moment as it would have been had there not been a continuity reboot a couple of years ago.

For example, I actually don't have any idea who knows Superman's secret identity and who doesn't at this particular point. Batman, Alfred, Wonder Woman and Ulysses, sure, after that? I don't know. So adding one more doesn't knock me down the way it might have five years ago.

4.) And, finally, on that thing everyone's been talking about today? I don't really care all that much, and I won't be terribly excited about the next Spider-Man movie unless it means Kirsten Dunst will be Mary Jane again, or Elizabeth Banks will be Betty Brant again or J.K. Simmons will be J. Jonah Jameson again (Actually, I think that there's my ideal Spider-Man movie; Spider-Man: Threat or Menace? starring Simmons as JJJ and Elizabeth Banks as Betty Brant and...that's it. Just two-and-a-half hours of Simmons yelling about stuff on a Daily Bugle set, with Banks giving him someone to talk to).

Those last two Spider-Man movies were not that great, but they had some pretty good performances in them, and if that franchise is ending with just the two films, then I'll at least miss Emma Stone, and Andrew Garfield's sweet chemistry with her and with Sally Field's Aunt May.

I'm not that interested in a Spider-Man 3.0 at this point, especially if it means re-telling his goddam origin again, or re-introducing another set of goddam Goblins. At this point, they've cycled through most of the best Spider-Man villains, and while there are some who would be great for film—Mysterio and The Chameleon—they're not exactly the sorts of characters one would expect to star in the first outting of a new superhero franchise, and so I'm not really sure where they could, would or should go next in terms of antagonists, re-doing previous villains or starting to use some of the lamer ones. Oh man, what if they make a movie with Morbius, The Living Vampire? Or Carnage? But maybe it won't matter. Iron Man hasn't had any villains, and his movies have tended to be pretty alright.

I think it is somewhat unfortunate that Marvel Studios will be getting into the Spider-Man movie business if only because the fact that Marvel Studios hasn't had access to Marvel Comics traditional foundational and/or most popular franchises—Spider-Man, The X-Men, The Fantastic Four—has kind of forced the Studios to be more creative, to develop C-listers like Iron Man and Thor and even Q-Listers like The Guardians of the Galaxy. I'd rather see Ant-Man and Dr. Strange than Ultimate Spider-Man (Or will it be Spectacular Spider-Man, do you think...?). I think we've seen this in their comics, too; the more the publisher is forced by circumstance to develop other franchises and characters—think of how the Q-rating of The Avengers has shifted between, say, 1994 and 2014—the better their line has become, the more chances they've taken and the more unlikely creative successes they've had.

Also, I can't imagine why Marvel would want to stick Spider-Man in any of their movies. The first Avengers movie only had, what, six superheroes in it, and most of them had very little to do. I think Hawkeye had like ten minutes of screen time? He shot an arrow once or twice, maybe? They're adding another three Avengers for the next movie. Are we gonna have Spider-Man joining the Avengers for the third film? Are they ever gonna get, like, say, one black guy on the team? That's not too much to ask, is it? One non-white Avenger?

The worst part of it is, however, that it will apparently delay several of the more interesting sounding film projects Marvel Studios already had in the pipeline, which means it will also apparently delay any of the more interesting-still Marvel Studios films that I want them to make but that they haven't announced yet, the ones that so far exist only in my dreams, like The Champions, The Defenders, The Invaders, Devil Dinosaur of The Savage Land, Man-Thing and Howard The Duck, Fin Fang Foom and The Legion of Monsters, Namor: The Submariner and J. Jonah Jameson Yelling For Like Three Hours.


You know, I say I don't care all that much now, and then I rattle off a bunch of negatives, but if it turns out that Marvel Studios' Spider-Man movie turns out to be a film adaptation of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, I'm going to be really excited.


Same goes for Spider-Man: The Clone Saga, co-starring Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Some New Guy.

1 comment:

Robert Jazo said...

While I doubt it will happen, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to cast Donald Glover as Peter Parker (not Miles Morales because man would that be hard to explain to people).