Oh my Awesome.
New kid-friendly Batman cartoon coming this fall. Batman: Brave and the Bold
And did you see the guest stars? Plastic Man? Green Arrow? BLUE BEETLE!!!?
I know there will be many more guests, as I've heard Aquaman will be on the show. I think the idea is the same as the 70's-era "Brave and the Bold" comics. Batman + guest star, rotating almost every week.
I am quite psyched for the kids (and me). This looks like so much fun, and the design work on this clip is really spectacular.
Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts
Friday, July 25, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The League finally saw Dark Knight
I think this is Part 1 of 2
So... Let us discuss The Dark Knight. This is relatively spoiler free, I guess.
Jamie and I got up and went to the 11:35am show at The Alamo. And, really, there is a heck of a lot of material out there for The Alamo to pull from for their pre-show. I highly recommend hitting one of the Alamo locations, for no other reason than seeing Prince's "Bat Dance" on the big screen.
It's actually an interesting contrast to see some of the decades' worth of Bat material prior to the film, as a reminder that Batman has changed so much, so frequently over the years, and how those different versions are so embedded in the public memory, a bit like different versions of King Arthur hitting TV, movies, the Broadway stage, what have you. All of them work (to a degree), and all of them serve a purpose.
Dark Knight throws off the last remnants of the Tim Burton era of Batman, and is able to take Bale's Batman into a world that is much, much closer to our own than any previously seen in any medium. And the movie is that much more powerful for it. There's still Batman's fantastic toys, but we've moved past the world of ninjas from Batman Begins, and the world no longer looks as if the director let the artistic director go kooky. It's an aesthetic choice that I think informs the viewer of the presentness of the characters and the very human dilemmas they face.
I won't go into discussing the performances of the various actors. Yes, they're all devoid of camp or irony. Yes, it is a pleasure to see Ledger's mad dog Joker, Bale's Wayne/ Batman, and Caine as an Alfred with a bit more mettle than most.
There's something exhausting about the new film, clocking in at over 2.5 hours with wall-to-wall story, and nary a quiet moment. But it was a familiar exhaustion. The kind I get when I kick back with a graphic novel or trade paperback collection that doesn't mind taking you through the ringer. Think "Long Halloween", "Watchmen", the original "Sin City"... stories that you can read in a single shot or two, but that are fairly densely packed and leave no one unscathed by the end of the story.
As much fun as I've had with super-flicks coming out this summer, its best that the super-offerings ended with Dark Knight rather than started with this movie. And I'm not saying this lightly, but Dark Knight has changed the game for superhero movies, just as Burton's Batman did in 1989. As I've mentioned on this site a few times, when Burton's Batman appeared, people were still thinking "Bam! Pow! Ziff!" when they thought superhero comics and movies (despite several Superman films, each of which still had no small amount of camp and humor tucked in for good measure). Nicholson's playfully deadly Joker wasn't necessarily frightening, but he was a darn sight more interesting than Romero's cackling criminal. And, more in spite of Keaton than because of him, it gave the public a new and far, far different take on Batman than Adam West.
Batman Begins acts as a great transition, setting up the newly pragmatic take on Batman, while still keeping him with a toe, if not a foot, in the fantastic.
I may be alone in this, but I felt The Dark Knight isn't just a huge leap for the Batman franchise, its a quantum leap for superhero movies in general from popcorn action flick to serious (crime) drama. Perhaps it's not Godfather II, but the movie operates on such a completely different level from this summer's other flicks such as "Hulk", "Hellboy II" and even "Iron Man".
This isn't:
-Hero has to stop Doomsday device (Superman, Spider-Man II, X-Men)
-Hero has to fight his equal (Superman II, Spider-Man)
-Hero has to explore their origins to solve the mystery (Hellboy)
-or some combination of the above (Superman Returns)
As much as I liked Hellboy II and Iron Man, they were both pretty pat stories that worked in the easy morality that usually makes up summer flicks. And, in fact, made up Batman Begins, in its way.
Nolan and Co. set out to push the boundaries of the accepted superhero norms of white hat heroism, and looked at exactly the way you make those involved pay. Structurally, it balances between superherodom and movies from guys like Michael Mann, De Palma or other film makers who've successfully delved into the morally gray territory of criminal and crime fighters. At least that's the basic world the film emulates far more than one of Bat-nipples and the possibility of anyone mistaking Alicia Silverstone as competent enough to drive a car, let alone act as an unlicensed crime fighter.
What's interesting is that the film does what I sort of suspected from the trailers: it manages to bring to the screen the busted, broken, fever dream of Gotham that I've known since middle school. Since the post COIE launch of Batman: Year One, this is the Gotham I've seen on the page, this is the Joker I've seen (in the more memorable stories), this is Harvey Dent (crusading DA), and this is the Batman I've known. For the first time, I white knuckled, both knowing exactly how this would play out, and having no idea what to expect next...
But more than that, its a Batman that makes sense on the screen, with walking, talking humans rather than humans trying to emulate a cartoon, and believing their story fits within the confines of children's entertainment. All while keeping the essence of Batman intact.
And after years of people in Batman costumes who weren't really Batman, and a promising start with Batman begins, its positively rewarding.
It's a unique thrill to feel the genre of superhero film being taken as a bit more than escapist fantasy (even when, like Iron Man, it has some interesting underpinnings). And it gives me hope for the future of superhero films. Can they move beyond the usual mad scientist schemes and doomsday devices? The comics all too rarely manage to do so, so it seems a bit premature to think that the next Hulk movie will do much more than open a can of whup-ass on some other over-sized muscled mutant, or that if they do a Flash movie, it will be about much more than the joy of moving far faster than the speed of sound. And I certainly don't think all superhero films NEED to go this direction, and Batman is uniquely posed to do so. But the fact that the window has been opened...
I don't want to overstate all of this, and I know I'm at risk of doing so. Dark Knight isn't going to ping on the cultural radar in the same manner as something either like Godfather or Star Wars. Because parents may wisely avoid taking their children to see Dark Knight (and I recommend this movie only for kids 12 or older) it's going to miss out on the humongous box office numbers of something like Spidey 3 (which, by the way, wasn't very good and mostly rode the goodwill of Spideys 1 &2 ). But I do see it as a shifting point for superhero movies.
Hopefully Dark Knight will give WB and DC the courage to take more chances on their own properties, mining them for the stories and characters that they already own.
Now, if the Superman team can figure out how to get that level of action and drama with their already developed story telling...
So, what'd you think? Chime in!
So... Let us discuss The Dark Knight. This is relatively spoiler free, I guess.
Jamie and I got up and went to the 11:35am show at The Alamo. And, really, there is a heck of a lot of material out there for The Alamo to pull from for their pre-show. I highly recommend hitting one of the Alamo locations, for no other reason than seeing Prince's "Bat Dance" on the big screen.
It's actually an interesting contrast to see some of the decades' worth of Bat material prior to the film, as a reminder that Batman has changed so much, so frequently over the years, and how those different versions are so embedded in the public memory, a bit like different versions of King Arthur hitting TV, movies, the Broadway stage, what have you. All of them work (to a degree), and all of them serve a purpose.
Dark Knight throws off the last remnants of the Tim Burton era of Batman, and is able to take Bale's Batman into a world that is much, much closer to our own than any previously seen in any medium. And the movie is that much more powerful for it. There's still Batman's fantastic toys, but we've moved past the world of ninjas from Batman Begins, and the world no longer looks as if the director let the artistic director go kooky. It's an aesthetic choice that I think informs the viewer of the presentness of the characters and the very human dilemmas they face.
I won't go into discussing the performances of the various actors. Yes, they're all devoid of camp or irony. Yes, it is a pleasure to see Ledger's mad dog Joker, Bale's Wayne/ Batman, and Caine as an Alfred with a bit more mettle than most.
There's something exhausting about the new film, clocking in at over 2.5 hours with wall-to-wall story, and nary a quiet moment. But it was a familiar exhaustion. The kind I get when I kick back with a graphic novel or trade paperback collection that doesn't mind taking you through the ringer. Think "Long Halloween", "Watchmen", the original "Sin City"... stories that you can read in a single shot or two, but that are fairly densely packed and leave no one unscathed by the end of the story.
As much fun as I've had with super-flicks coming out this summer, its best that the super-offerings ended with Dark Knight rather than started with this movie. And I'm not saying this lightly, but Dark Knight has changed the game for superhero movies, just as Burton's Batman did in 1989. As I've mentioned on this site a few times, when Burton's Batman appeared, people were still thinking "Bam! Pow! Ziff!" when they thought superhero comics and movies (despite several Superman films, each of which still had no small amount of camp and humor tucked in for good measure). Nicholson's playfully deadly Joker wasn't necessarily frightening, but he was a darn sight more interesting than Romero's cackling criminal. And, more in spite of Keaton than because of him, it gave the public a new and far, far different take on Batman than Adam West.
Batman Begins acts as a great transition, setting up the newly pragmatic take on Batman, while still keeping him with a toe, if not a foot, in the fantastic.
I may be alone in this, but I felt The Dark Knight isn't just a huge leap for the Batman franchise, its a quantum leap for superhero movies in general from popcorn action flick to serious (crime) drama. Perhaps it's not Godfather II, but the movie operates on such a completely different level from this summer's other flicks such as "Hulk", "Hellboy II" and even "Iron Man".
This isn't:
-Hero has to stop Doomsday device (Superman, Spider-Man II, X-Men)
-Hero has to fight his equal (Superman II, Spider-Man)
-Hero has to explore their origins to solve the mystery (Hellboy)
-or some combination of the above (Superman Returns)
As much as I liked Hellboy II and Iron Man, they were both pretty pat stories that worked in the easy morality that usually makes up summer flicks. And, in fact, made up Batman Begins, in its way.
Nolan and Co. set out to push the boundaries of the accepted superhero norms of white hat heroism, and looked at exactly the way you make those involved pay. Structurally, it balances between superherodom and movies from guys like Michael Mann, De Palma or other film makers who've successfully delved into the morally gray territory of criminal and crime fighters. At least that's the basic world the film emulates far more than one of Bat-nipples and the possibility of anyone mistaking Alicia Silverstone as competent enough to drive a car, let alone act as an unlicensed crime fighter.
What's interesting is that the film does what I sort of suspected from the trailers: it manages to bring to the screen the busted, broken, fever dream of Gotham that I've known since middle school. Since the post COIE launch of Batman: Year One, this is the Gotham I've seen on the page, this is the Joker I've seen (in the more memorable stories), this is Harvey Dent (crusading DA), and this is the Batman I've known. For the first time, I white knuckled, both knowing exactly how this would play out, and having no idea what to expect next...
But more than that, its a Batman that makes sense on the screen, with walking, talking humans rather than humans trying to emulate a cartoon, and believing their story fits within the confines of children's entertainment. All while keeping the essence of Batman intact.
And after years of people in Batman costumes who weren't really Batman, and a promising start with Batman begins, its positively rewarding.
It's a unique thrill to feel the genre of superhero film being taken as a bit more than escapist fantasy (even when, like Iron Man, it has some interesting underpinnings). And it gives me hope for the future of superhero films. Can they move beyond the usual mad scientist schemes and doomsday devices? The comics all too rarely manage to do so, so it seems a bit premature to think that the next Hulk movie will do much more than open a can of whup-ass on some other over-sized muscled mutant, or that if they do a Flash movie, it will be about much more than the joy of moving far faster than the speed of sound. And I certainly don't think all superhero films NEED to go this direction, and Batman is uniquely posed to do so. But the fact that the window has been opened...
I don't want to overstate all of this, and I know I'm at risk of doing so. Dark Knight isn't going to ping on the cultural radar in the same manner as something either like Godfather or Star Wars. Because parents may wisely avoid taking their children to see Dark Knight (and I recommend this movie only for kids 12 or older) it's going to miss out on the humongous box office numbers of something like Spidey 3 (which, by the way, wasn't very good and mostly rode the goodwill of Spideys 1 &2 ). But I do see it as a shifting point for superhero movies.
Hopefully Dark Knight will give WB and DC the courage to take more chances on their own properties, mining them for the stories and characters that they already own.
Now, if the Superman team can figure out how to get that level of action and drama with their already developed story telling...
So, what'd you think? Chime in!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Batman (1966)
As much as I consider myself a Superman nut, as much as I dig the Green Lantern Corps and Wonder Woman... my love of superheroes, and, in fact, my life is indelibly linked with Batman. In fact, it all started with the 1960's TV show featuring Adam West and Burt Ward.
As a very young kid, I was Bat-crazy. There are stories that suggest that "Batman" was my first word. Apparently, when I was very tiny, they re-ran the old Batman episodes on a local affiliate every day at the time my Mom would start on dinner. And for whatever reason, as a VERY tiny kid, putting me in front of Batman would keep me from freaking out and doing the things kids of that age can do to distract nice Moms who are making dinner.
Its also Steans family lore that as soon as I could put words together, I was tying my blanket around my neck and singing the Batman theme song. This was followed by collecting what must have been Mego Batman dolls, Batmobiles, etc... And, in all honesty, it never really stopped.
And I've never quit digging the old Batman show. Sure, when I was little, I had no idea it was being played for laughs. Adam West seemed not unlike my Dad in unflattering tights, and it seemed reasonable that The Admiral was off fighting crime in much the same way. Moreover, it seemed reasonable that crooks and criminals were brightly dressed weirdos with themed criminal plots, who really weren't going to hurt anyone.
Today Jamie and I went to see the 1966 movie of "Batman" at the Alamo, which was playing a free kid's matinee.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the theater was very full, and full of kids. Prior to the show, they played an episode of the most recent animated Batman series. Then, just before the lights went down, an Alamo employee addressed the audience from behind a convincing Batman mask, and informed the kids that only bad guys talk during movies. Heck, I was convinced.
The movie was released theatrically between the first and and second seasons of the TV show. I'd always thought it to be created prior to the series, so it goes to show you: You learn a new Bat-Fact every day. And, apparently, had its world premier here in sunny Austin because, it seems, the boat was manufactured in Austin. Possibly at the Paramount (I'm looking for photos to confirm)!
Jason and Reed: ready for a night on the town
The movie and series hold up pretty well, all things considered. There's something off-kilter about the show that I've always liked, as if every was hanging out and smoking a Kool about ten seconds before the cameras rolled, and then threw themselves headfirst into the insanity.
West's Batman has become iconic since the show first aired. Utterly serious, while delivering the awesomest dialog ever.
Really, I hesitate to seriously ponder how much of my personality is imprinted from Mr. West.
Burt Ward's Boy Wonder is great, as is Alan Napier's Alfred. But what really sells the film is the cast of villains.
My favorite of the Bat-villains from the TV show was always Frank Gorshin as The Riddler. I particularly like Dini's take on Edward Nigma in recent issues of Detective, but its hard to beat Gorshin's sheer joy at befuddling the Caped Crusader. Plus, those costumes are iconic.
Villainy abounds!
Burgess Meredith and Caesar Romero are good as The Penguin and Joker are pretty good, too.
Topping the list, however, is Lee Meriwether as Catwoman/ Kitka. Apparently Julie Newmar had a prior commitment during filming, but I think Ms. Meriwether more than fills the catsuit. Yowza.
Meow.
Apparently I'm not the only one who appreciates Ms. Meriwether as Catwoman. Mr. Romero is very "hands on" with Catwoman in several scenes, particularly in the Penguin submarine. Seriously. With that make-up, its a little creepy.
The movie also features one of my favorite aspects of Batman in all his incarnations: the vehicles! Batcopter. Batcycle. Batmobile. Awesome.
The Batman TV series left an amazingly deep impression upon the public's concept of the superhero. I still remember going to see Burton's "Batman" on opening weekend and the theater had decorated the lobby with all of these hand-made "Bam! Wap! Pow!" signs all over the place.
To say that the show wasn't a fairly accurate representation of the comics of the time is a bit of a stretch. The comic was very light kid's fair at the time, and was mostly Batman and his pal Robin in light scrapes. And while not exactly Tolstoy, it wasn't necessarily set up for laughs the way the TV series was.
It seems the post Spider-Man movie world has finally shaken off the Batman TV series impression of how superheroes should be viewed. And, in fact, it's sort of a game in the comics' blogosphere to highlight articles where the writer uses phrases like "Bam! Pow!", or comments that comics aren't as silly or childish as they'd assumed. (That's been a staple of mainstream journalism since Burton's Batman bowed in 1989, yet writers in search of a fluff article keep re-discovering this same topic.)
From anecdotal evidence, I think most parents today grew up with Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman and had the whole experience capped with Raimi's Spider-Man. So the legacy of the 60's Batman isn't the pervasive thing it was. And I think that's actually, as it should be.
The 1960's Batman is very good at what it does. The cast is terrific. Its a fun show (especially the movie). And I think there's room for all sorts of interpretations of Batman, from Bale's grim Dark Knight to West's philosophizing playboy on the town. And I think it's a fantastic part of the legacy of Batman.
Mostly, I was pleased with how the kids seemed to like it, if their silence throughout the film was any indication.
I did mention to Jamie, as we were leaving and I was processing the film in my mind "You know, about two-thirds of the way through, I felt like I had been taking crazy pills." The kaleidoscope colors, rapid pacing, nonsensical plot and, really, haphazard pacing of the thing just sort of adds up to a unique and strange whole. As pointed out by a kid leaving the theater...
Mom: Did you like it?
Kid: Yeah! (pause) It was weird...
Mom: Well, it was supposed to be.
That is one hip, hip mom.
As a very young kid, I was Bat-crazy. There are stories that suggest that "Batman" was my first word. Apparently, when I was very tiny, they re-ran the old Batman episodes on a local affiliate every day at the time my Mom would start on dinner. And for whatever reason, as a VERY tiny kid, putting me in front of Batman would keep me from freaking out and doing the things kids of that age can do to distract nice Moms who are making dinner.
Its also Steans family lore that as soon as I could put words together, I was tying my blanket around my neck and singing the Batman theme song. This was followed by collecting what must have been Mego Batman dolls, Batmobiles, etc... And, in all honesty, it never really stopped.
And I've never quit digging the old Batman show. Sure, when I was little, I had no idea it was being played for laughs. Adam West seemed not unlike my Dad in unflattering tights, and it seemed reasonable that The Admiral was off fighting crime in much the same way. Moreover, it seemed reasonable that crooks and criminals were brightly dressed weirdos with themed criminal plots, who really weren't going to hurt anyone.
Today Jamie and I went to see the 1966 movie of "Batman" at the Alamo, which was playing a free kid's matinee.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the theater was very full, and full of kids. Prior to the show, they played an episode of the most recent animated Batman series. Then, just before the lights went down, an Alamo employee addressed the audience from behind a convincing Batman mask, and informed the kids that only bad guys talk during movies. Heck, I was convinced.
The movie was released theatrically between the first and and second seasons of the TV show. I'd always thought it to be created prior to the series, so it goes to show you: You learn a new Bat-Fact every day. And, apparently, had its world premier here in sunny Austin because, it seems, the boat was manufactured in Austin. Possibly at the Paramount (I'm looking for photos to confirm)!
Jason and Reed: ready for a night on the town
The movie and series hold up pretty well, all things considered. There's something off-kilter about the show that I've always liked, as if every was hanging out and smoking a Kool about ten seconds before the cameras rolled, and then threw themselves headfirst into the insanity.
West's Batman has become iconic since the show first aired. Utterly serious, while delivering the awesomest dialog ever.
Batman: We've been given the plainest warning. They're working together to take over...
Chief O'Hara: Take over *what*, Batman? Gotham City?
Batman: Any *two* of them would try that!
Commissioner Gordon: The whole country?
Batman: If it were three of them, I would say yes, but *four*? Their minimum objective must be... the *entire* world.
Really, I hesitate to seriously ponder how much of my personality is imprinted from Mr. West.
Burt Ward's Boy Wonder is great, as is Alan Napier's Alfred. But what really sells the film is the cast of villains.
My favorite of the Bat-villains from the TV show was always Frank Gorshin as The Riddler. I particularly like Dini's take on Edward Nigma in recent issues of Detective, but its hard to beat Gorshin's sheer joy at befuddling the Caped Crusader. Plus, those costumes are iconic.
Villainy abounds!
Burgess Meredith and Caesar Romero are good as The Penguin and Joker are pretty good, too.
Topping the list, however, is Lee Meriwether as Catwoman/ Kitka. Apparently Julie Newmar had a prior commitment during filming, but I think Ms. Meriwether more than fills the catsuit. Yowza.
Meow.
Apparently I'm not the only one who appreciates Ms. Meriwether as Catwoman. Mr. Romero is very "hands on" with Catwoman in several scenes, particularly in the Penguin submarine. Seriously. With that make-up, its a little creepy.
The movie also features one of my favorite aspects of Batman in all his incarnations: the vehicles! Batcopter. Batcycle. Batmobile. Awesome.
The Batman TV series left an amazingly deep impression upon the public's concept of the superhero. I still remember going to see Burton's "Batman" on opening weekend and the theater had decorated the lobby with all of these hand-made "Bam! Wap! Pow!" signs all over the place.
To say that the show wasn't a fairly accurate representation of the comics of the time is a bit of a stretch. The comic was very light kid's fair at the time, and was mostly Batman and his pal Robin in light scrapes. And while not exactly Tolstoy, it wasn't necessarily set up for laughs the way the TV series was.
It seems the post Spider-Man movie world has finally shaken off the Batman TV series impression of how superheroes should be viewed. And, in fact, it's sort of a game in the comics' blogosphere to highlight articles where the writer uses phrases like "Bam! Pow!", or comments that comics aren't as silly or childish as they'd assumed. (That's been a staple of mainstream journalism since Burton's Batman bowed in 1989, yet writers in search of a fluff article keep re-discovering this same topic.)
From anecdotal evidence, I think most parents today grew up with Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman and had the whole experience capped with Raimi's Spider-Man. So the legacy of the 60's Batman isn't the pervasive thing it was. And I think that's actually, as it should be.
The 1960's Batman is very good at what it does. The cast is terrific. Its a fun show (especially the movie). And I think there's room for all sorts of interpretations of Batman, from Bale's grim Dark Knight to West's philosophizing playboy on the town. And I think it's a fantastic part of the legacy of Batman.
Mostly, I was pleased with how the kids seemed to like it, if their silence throughout the film was any indication.
I did mention to Jamie, as we were leaving and I was processing the film in my mind "You know, about two-thirds of the way through, I felt like I had been taking crazy pills." The kaleidoscope colors, rapid pacing, nonsensical plot and, really, haphazard pacing of the thing just sort of adds up to a unique and strange whole. As pointed out by a kid leaving the theater...
Mom: Did you like it?
Kid: Yeah! (pause) It was weird...
Mom: Well, it was supposed to be.
That is one hip, hip mom.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Bat-related Items
As you know, the new Batman movie is coming to the theaters. I'm pleased as punch, and it seems that early reviews are looking pretty good.
So here's some Bat-items:
Bat-Item #1: I'm in deep yogurt with Jamie. You see, The Dark Knight is being released to theaters on Friday, July 18th. I have bought two tickets to the 11:40pm screening for Thursday, July 17th at the Alamo South.
We're headed for Houston on Friday afternoon after Jamie's been to dialysis on Friday morning. As she has to be up at 7:30ish for dialysis on Friday, it seems that she probably won't be going to the movies with me until the wee hours of Thursday.
So... I have a spare Bat-ticket if anyone wants to see The Dark Knight next Thursday evening. Just shoot me a bat-mail.
Bat-Item #2: If you have a few spare minutes, check out the spoof Michael Bay script for a Batman sequel at The Spill. Totally, positively brilliant.
Sadly, it seems folks in the comments section were not clear that this was a bit of a larf at the expense of Mr. Bay. So... yeah.
And it seems the site is where Korey, Jamie's former co-worker, is now cooling his heels.
Thanks to Shoemaker for sending this link.
Bat-Item #3: I'm pinching pennies with generic cereal and soda, but I did go out and pick up "Batman: Gotham Knight". It's DC's latest animated feature film, and its well worth checking out. It's six short films, all loosely interconnected and handled by several different writers and artists.
As I told Jamie, I almost found the movie a bit overwhelming. The artistry of the movie is unquestionable. This is excellent talent having a field day with the material. I should probably mention the animation was also in what I'll loosely call the "anime" style, though it vastly surpasses, say... Pokemon, and there are fairly vast differences between US animation and the storytelling techniques of Anime.
The Gotham of the film falls somewhere between the "Batman Begins" and the continuity of the comics, including villains and protagonists from the funny book pages (I was thrilled to see Cris Allen show up, and a stand-in for Renee Montoya).
Unfortunately, I'm returning the 2-disc set. The second disc of the set was messed up pretty badly and really blew up my DVD player. I wound up having to unplug the player from the wall to reboot it.
Bat-Item #4: Grant Morrison's run on Batman has gotten so topsy turvy, I think I'm just going to have to hold out until the end of the Batman RIP storyline before I have anything intelligent to say about it.
That said, I'm enjoying it.
Bat-Item #5: From what I've read, it doesn't sound like "The Dark Knight" is a movie for little kids. Or even much of a family-fun film. Which is putting the marketing ad-in's in a weird spot.
At Target today, I saw the action figures for the new movie (they're pretty good!), but I kept thinking how weird it was to have toys of an actor so recently passed, and playing a murderous lunatic at that.
Throw in the images of Bale's Batman looking back at me from candy wrappers and cereal boxes, and its an odd, odd mix.
(sidenote: Speaking of toys, if anyone finds the Superman ImagiNext toy with Superman and Krypto, buy it for me. I will reimburse you.)
I guess it speaks to the flexibility and resiliency of the Batman franchise that he can be a smiling face on a kid's toy in one aisle of a store, and he's breaking the bones of thugs in a movie playing at the cinema, and nobody "bats" an eye.
Bat-Item #6: The Alamo South is showing the classic Adam West version of Batman at 11:00 AM next Monday through Thursday. I am totally going. And I'm bringing my Bat Shark Repellent.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Colonel Blimp, revisited...
Well, I'll be dipped.
It seems that when I shot my mouth off in this recent post regarding a Batman back-issue, I should have bit my tongue.
In the post, after praising the comic, I said the following:
Let this be a lesson to YOU, Leaguers. ALWAYS GOOGLE IT.
According to Wikipedia, Colonel Blimp was not originally a DC Comics creation, but, in fact, a sly nod to a British cartoon character of the same name. See the Wikipedia entry.
From the post:
Interesting, no?
This Col. Blimp character must have been pretty popular. There's even a movie called: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp that received the Criterion Edition treatment.
Further, it seems the Col. Blimp in the issue was actually a call back to a very early Batman comic featuring a villain named Carl Kruger. Who employed a dirigible of some sort.
It would be interesting to learn a bit more about what Gerry Conway was thinking, employing the name (but not the likeness) of the other Col. Blimp. It seems highly unlikely the use of the name was a coincidence.
So, there goes the one weird things about Detective 519. Go figure.
By the way, if you haven't read the comments in the original post, we were honored to have Mr. Paul Kupperberg, who scripted the issue, drop by and discuss the artist, Don Newton, and a few other items.
I'm off to go dig the Carl Kruger story up in a reprint. I must have read it a while back. Plus, I may look for this Col. Blimp movie.
Man, I love comics. And the internets.
It seems that when I shot my mouth off in this recent post regarding a Batman back-issue, I should have bit my tongue.
In the post, after praising the comic, I said the following:
The problem: Not only is our terrorist wearing a grape-colored chauffer's outfit, his nom-de-crime? Colonel Blimp.
Not exactly a name geared toward striking fear in the hearts of the populace. And a little on the nose, I think. I am unsure why Conway and or Kupperberg slacked so badly on the villain's name, but there you have it.
Let this be a lesson to YOU, Leaguers. ALWAYS GOOGLE IT.
According to Wikipedia, Colonel Blimp was not originally a DC Comics creation, but, in fact, a sly nod to a British cartoon character of the same name. See the Wikipedia entry.
From the post:
Blimp was a satire on the reactionary opinions of the British establishment of the 1930s and 1940s.
Interesting, no?
This Col. Blimp character must have been pretty popular. There's even a movie called: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp that received the Criterion Edition treatment.
Further, it seems the Col. Blimp in the issue was actually a call back to a very early Batman comic featuring a villain named Carl Kruger. Who employed a dirigible of some sort.
It would be interesting to learn a bit more about what Gerry Conway was thinking, employing the name (but not the likeness) of the other Col. Blimp. It seems highly unlikely the use of the name was a coincidence.
So, there goes the one weird things about Detective 519. Go figure.
By the way, if you haven't read the comments in the original post, we were honored to have Mr. Paul Kupperberg, who scripted the issue, drop by and discuss the artist, Don Newton, and a few other items.
I'm off to go dig the Carl Kruger story up in a reprint. I must have read it a while back. Plus, I may look for this Col. Blimp movie.
Man, I love comics. And the internets.
Friday, June 27, 2008
My first Batman Comic!
About a year ago I was digging through some back issues at Austin Books and I stumbled across Detective Comics #519.
Detective Comics #519 is the first Batman comic I ever recall reading. I think my dad bought it for me and just dropped it on me at some point, right about the summer before third grade. I remember this for a somewhat specific reason, which I'll get to in a minute. It was also the only Batman comic I would read between 3rd grade and 5th grade.
The issue's writing is handled by two of my favorites from pre-Crisis DC. Gerry Conway on plot. Paul Kupperberg on script. Pencils are by a "Don Newton". I don't know Don's work, but its really, really nice. Well rendered in an illustrative style. I don't think this cover is Newton. It might be Aparo, but I have no idea.
(update: The cover is Aparo. And, sadly, it seems Don Newton died suddenly in 1984. Here's a web-gallery of his work for you to enjoy.)
The story is the second half of a tale (which began in the previous issue) wherein Batman confronts a terrorist holding Washington DC hostage with exploding blimps. Its actually a pretty cool story, with Batman unravelling the villain's scheme.
The problem: Not only is our terrorist wearing a grape-colored chauffer's outfit, his nom-de-crime? Colonel Blimp.
Not exactly a name geared toward striking fear in the hearts of the populace. And a little on the nose, I think. I am unsure why Conway and or Kupperberg slacked so badly on the villain's name, but there you have it.
Blimp is also awesome enough to give his henchmen themed outfits.
I can't tell you how much I would pay for exactly that same shirt.
Part of the plot includes Blimp's henchmen trying to hi-jack nuclear subs in the arctic. Robin heads off to run interference, which seems short-sited with his perpensity of wearing green undies and precious little else south of the equator. Fortunately, the Bat-team seem to have ready-to-wear bat-onesies.
Robin looks adorable in his little outfit.
I was especially impressed by a "Batman escapes from the exploding blimp" sequence. Well rendered, well-framed, and with the appropriate sense of tension. Jack Bauer, eat your heart out.
click on these panels for full detail
Now, THAT is an explosion. Well done, Don Newton! It's almost like you didn't use Hindenburg photo reference.
Now, why was this my last Batman comic for a while?
Back in the 80's, DC had opened the door to writers using the words "damn" and "hell". At the Steans house, profanity was taken with all seriousness. We could see movies with "dirty words", but it wasn't until the Eddie Murphy incident of 1984 that blue language began to creep into our household's entertainment with any regularity.
Marvel always substituted words like "blazes" for "hell". And in the X-books, people couldn't make a cup of coffee without telling someone "it hurt like blazes" or to "go to blazes". And I think, honestly, it was part of why I started reading Marve before DC. That, and Marvel was never was all-out weird and apocalyptic as DC could get.
Anyway, all I could recall about this comic 20-odd years later was that it had a swear in it somewhere. Lo, those many years ago I'd been pretty scarred by stumbling across a swear in my funnybook.
In fact, when my third grade teacher put some comics on a shelf for us to enjoy during quiet reading time, I was horrified to see the image of Colonel Blimp and Batman on one of the comics and made a special point of telling Ms. Martin that those batman comics were for older kids because they had swears in them.
After scanning the comic, this is the only use of any four-letter word in the entire comic:
Wow. I was a sensitive kid. My parents didn't even have to find this smut themselves, I was so busy self-censoring.
It was TWO YEARS before I read Batman again. And I honestly have no idea what happened to that copy of this comic. Just as I have no idea where my Bugs Bunny comics, etc... went.
But I don't think Ms. Martin ever pulled those comics off the shelf, for which I salute her
I don't think we ever saw the likes of Colonel Blimp appear again in the Batbooks. Perhaps because it was just a little tough to take even our Dark Knight seriously when he's delivering lines like:
So a salute to sweet, sheltered little Ryan and a life before he used swears with all kinds of regularity. And a salute to this comic, which is still really good after all these years.
Detective Comics #519 is the first Batman comic I ever recall reading. I think my dad bought it for me and just dropped it on me at some point, right about the summer before third grade. I remember this for a somewhat specific reason, which I'll get to in a minute. It was also the only Batman comic I would read between 3rd grade and 5th grade.
The issue's writing is handled by two of my favorites from pre-Crisis DC. Gerry Conway on plot. Paul Kupperberg on script. Pencils are by a "Don Newton". I don't know Don's work, but its really, really nice. Well rendered in an illustrative style. I don't think this cover is Newton. It might be Aparo, but I have no idea.
(update: The cover is Aparo. And, sadly, it seems Don Newton died suddenly in 1984. Here's a web-gallery of his work for you to enjoy.)
The story is the second half of a tale (which began in the previous issue) wherein Batman confronts a terrorist holding Washington DC hostage with exploding blimps. Its actually a pretty cool story, with Batman unravelling the villain's scheme.
The problem: Not only is our terrorist wearing a grape-colored chauffer's outfit, his nom-de-crime? Colonel Blimp.
Not exactly a name geared toward striking fear in the hearts of the populace. And a little on the nose, I think. I am unsure why Conway and or Kupperberg slacked so badly on the villain's name, but there you have it.
Blimp is also awesome enough to give his henchmen themed outfits.
I can't tell you how much I would pay for exactly that same shirt.
Part of the plot includes Blimp's henchmen trying to hi-jack nuclear subs in the arctic. Robin heads off to run interference, which seems short-sited with his perpensity of wearing green undies and precious little else south of the equator. Fortunately, the Bat-team seem to have ready-to-wear bat-onesies.
Robin looks adorable in his little outfit.
I was especially impressed by a "Batman escapes from the exploding blimp" sequence. Well rendered, well-framed, and with the appropriate sense of tension. Jack Bauer, eat your heart out.
click on these panels for full detail
Now, THAT is an explosion. Well done, Don Newton! It's almost like you didn't use Hindenburg photo reference.
Now, why was this my last Batman comic for a while?
Back in the 80's, DC had opened the door to writers using the words "damn" and "hell". At the Steans house, profanity was taken with all seriousness. We could see movies with "dirty words", but it wasn't until the Eddie Murphy incident of 1984 that blue language began to creep into our household's entertainment with any regularity.
Marvel always substituted words like "blazes" for "hell". And in the X-books, people couldn't make a cup of coffee without telling someone "it hurt like blazes" or to "go to blazes". And I think, honestly, it was part of why I started reading Marve before DC. That, and Marvel was never was all-out weird and apocalyptic as DC could get.
Anyway, all I could recall about this comic 20-odd years later was that it had a swear in it somewhere. Lo, those many years ago I'd been pretty scarred by stumbling across a swear in my funnybook.
In fact, when my third grade teacher put some comics on a shelf for us to enjoy during quiet reading time, I was horrified to see the image of Colonel Blimp and Batman on one of the comics and made a special point of telling Ms. Martin that those batman comics were for older kids because they had swears in them.
After scanning the comic, this is the only use of any four-letter word in the entire comic:
Wow. I was a sensitive kid. My parents didn't even have to find this smut themselves, I was so busy self-censoring.
It was TWO YEARS before I read Batman again. And I honestly have no idea what happened to that copy of this comic. Just as I have no idea where my Bugs Bunny comics, etc... went.
But I don't think Ms. Martin ever pulled those comics off the shelf, for which I salute her
I don't think we ever saw the likes of Colonel Blimp appear again in the Batbooks. Perhaps because it was just a little tough to take even our Dark Knight seriously when he's delivering lines like:
So a salute to sweet, sheltered little Ryan and a life before he used swears with all kinds of regularity. And a salute to this comic, which is still really good after all these years.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Vote Harvey Dent
I don't know if you live in Gotham City or not, but with the election cycle heating up, its hard to miss the campaign to make Harvey Dent Gotham's newest District Attorney. I've found the ground swell of support for a man with whom I feel I share so many values to be particularly gratifying.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
Friday, April 04, 2008
New Batman cartoon
Looks like there's a new Batman cartoon coming in the next year or so, intended to replace the now canceled "The Batman" series. Which had more or less turned into a team-up series in the past year, anyway. I wasn't crazy about "The Batman". The first year or two, the creators changed things, more or less just to change them, not because it added anything to the show.
I was also never 100% sold on their character designs. And they just never really seemed to really dig in and build a world the way Bruce Timm had done. Moreover, their takes on the rest of the Justice League was a far cry from the excellence of JLU.
I have no idea what the new Batman series will be like or about, but I like two things here:
1) The Dick Sprang styling on Batman. Looks very kid friendly. I'm hoping for a fun take.
2) Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle!
I am a huge fan of the current Blue Beetle series and character. One of the best titles out there right now, and the character is really well thought out, as are all of the details of the book.
I think Jaime Reyes is a natural for a kids cartoon show, so I just hope they don't screw it up.
Huzzah!
Anyway, the series looks pretty straightforward. Batman teams up with someone new from the DCU every week and, I guess, saves the day. Anyhow, I'll tune in.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The League Watches: Confessions of a Superhero
I had planned to try to see "Confessions of a Superhero" a while back. I think we'd planned to go with CB, but something came up.
Anyhoo... It showed up from Netflix today, and as I'm a bit under the weather, I popped it in and watched.
A long time ago, I recall some joke about the best way to get the respect of your peers in film school was to go shoot footgae of a neighborhood hobo in black and white for a few hours, get the person to tell you a sad story and then call it "Umbrellas Under Sadness". Or something of the sort. If anyone knows the exact quote, please share. But, ultimately, the idea kind of describes how I feel about a lot of "character" based documentary. Up close, everyone comes off as bizarre, and so its kind of an easy trick, especially when you can get someone living outside of normal expectations to talk to you, and a director and editor making a narrative from the whole cloth of a life.
It goes without saying that people who make a living by standing in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater dressed as Superman, etc... have, at some point, taken the path less traveled. Yes, these subjects have a story to tell, but it's never really clear if this is a new story we haven't heard before, even without the superhero angle. The documentary points out somewhat unintentionally "Going to Hollywood and maintaining a delusion of impending stardom when all Signs Point to No makes for a kind of pathetic story". And it's a story most people already know or we'd all be in LA wondering when we were going to get our break as a leading man or lady.
The movie is mostly about the shattered lives of four Hollywood wanna-be's, and seems to be trying to use the costumes of superheroes as a symbol of their hope, but only occasionally. Unfortunately, the movie fails to answer too many questions, and so whatever message they were trying to say, what the movie winds up conveying is "these people are off their nut, and they have no marketable skills. Also, 3 of 4 of these people is certifiable, and number 4 is working her way toward some bitter disappointment."
Folks who see the movie and who know me will, no doubt, wonder about my reaction to Christopher Dennis, the movie's Superman. Mr. Dennis seems like an affable enough guy. And while I admire his collection of Superman memoribilia (which easily dwarfs my own), he's a fan who has chosen to follow his obsession to the exclusion of everything else. The fact that he has found love is, to this viewer, not a surprise. He's found someone who finds him endlessly fascinating and who has accepted him as he's accepted her (she seems to have her own quirks). The Dennis segments are an unintentional cautionary tale for folks like myself, I guess. I did appreciate the advice he gave "Ghost Rider" about what behavior is acceptable when in costume/ character. But the film also demonstrates why I never want to go to the Superman Festival in Metropolis, Illinois.
The biggest issue was that the movie raised literally dozens of serious questions about the subjects of the film, and then does nothing to resolve those questions. In effect, you feel almost as if you know less about the subjects at the conclusion of the film than you did at the beginning, and its a frustrating way to view a documentary.
The film's subjects somewhat casually tell stories which demand follow up, but the film never does the work for the viewer. Our Batman tells tales of working in the Italian mob, killing the family of a former lover, and acting as an enforcer. Superman claims to be the child of actress Sandy Dennis, while Ms. Dennis's family claims she never had any children. Our Hulk discusses being homeless, but we're never told why. And Wonder Woman isn't much of a mystery, but we never get why she and her husband split, but the fact that they married two weeks after meeting sort of suggests what may have happened.
The film's creators spend entirely too much time on cinematography and still photos and almost none actually crafting the story. They mostly take the folks involved at their word, even when their spouses are saying "you can only believe 50% of what he says." The fact that the producers didn't chase these clues down (possibly to reveal that the guy playing Batman was responsible for the deaths of many people) goes beyond laziness and into outright irresponsibility. If Batman was lying or believes what he says, he needs help. And so they send him to the shrink in a full Batman outfit.
There's never a question of where the money came from for the costumes in the first place. There's never a question of why the subjetcs chose the character they did, or what they actually know about the character (pretty clearly in the case of Dennis: a lot). Heck, there's never even a question of "is dressing as a superhero on Hollywood Boulevard the best investment of your time if you want to be a serious actor?" Like so many Hollywood producers who've generated so many bad, bad super-hero movies, to the documentarians, the costumes are just a prop on the way to a paycheck. But I suspect that's a complaint only a comic nerd like myself might have.
The documentary seems to want for the audience to root for and support the characters, but there's simply no reason given as to "why"? If they aren't putting on the costumes to make the world a better place, but for self-promotion, and this is the step they've taken toward their goals of money and power, why should I care if they fail or succeed?
Part of this, I suspect, is that the filmmakers are in line with the platitudes provided by the film's subjects regarding the movie industry's placement of value on fame and money. Perhaps the film is intended to indict this idea, but it seems to be cheerleading the subjects.
The omissions of the film act as a huge distraction and mostly point out that, aside from long, lingering views of Dennis's Superman memoribilia-rich apartment, they just don't have much to show. A quick trip to Wonder Woman's hometown suggest she had a mother who indulged her every whim and may hvae chosen poorly when she gave up an iron grip on a town of 2000 for asking for tips for dressing as Wonder Woman.
Interesting characters, perhaps... but perhaps the movie could have spent less time on musical interludes of the Hulk in litter strewn alleys and more asking him "Hey, four years on the street? How did that happen? And why didn't you just go home to North Carolina?"
The sad answer to a lot of these questions is probably: the person is crazy or not-all-there. And absolutely no evidence is given to the contrary.
In short, I can't really recommend the film. My hope was that it would be more about the histories of the subjects, but instead the producers chose to just focus on the present tense of the situation, half of which seems to be a steady stream of fabrications.
Anyhoo... It showed up from Netflix today, and as I'm a bit under the weather, I popped it in and watched.
A long time ago, I recall some joke about the best way to get the respect of your peers in film school was to go shoot footgae of a neighborhood hobo in black and white for a few hours, get the person to tell you a sad story and then call it "Umbrellas Under Sadness". Or something of the sort. If anyone knows the exact quote, please share. But, ultimately, the idea kind of describes how I feel about a lot of "character" based documentary. Up close, everyone comes off as bizarre, and so its kind of an easy trick, especially when you can get someone living outside of normal expectations to talk to you, and a director and editor making a narrative from the whole cloth of a life.
It goes without saying that people who make a living by standing in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater dressed as Superman, etc... have, at some point, taken the path less traveled. Yes, these subjects have a story to tell, but it's never really clear if this is a new story we haven't heard before, even without the superhero angle. The documentary points out somewhat unintentionally "Going to Hollywood and maintaining a delusion of impending stardom when all Signs Point to No makes for a kind of pathetic story". And it's a story most people already know or we'd all be in LA wondering when we were going to get our break as a leading man or lady.
The movie is mostly about the shattered lives of four Hollywood wanna-be's, and seems to be trying to use the costumes of superheroes as a symbol of their hope, but only occasionally. Unfortunately, the movie fails to answer too many questions, and so whatever message they were trying to say, what the movie winds up conveying is "these people are off their nut, and they have no marketable skills. Also, 3 of 4 of these people is certifiable, and number 4 is working her way toward some bitter disappointment."
Folks who see the movie and who know me will, no doubt, wonder about my reaction to Christopher Dennis, the movie's Superman. Mr. Dennis seems like an affable enough guy. And while I admire his collection of Superman memoribilia (which easily dwarfs my own), he's a fan who has chosen to follow his obsession to the exclusion of everything else. The fact that he has found love is, to this viewer, not a surprise. He's found someone who finds him endlessly fascinating and who has accepted him as he's accepted her (she seems to have her own quirks). The Dennis segments are an unintentional cautionary tale for folks like myself, I guess. I did appreciate the advice he gave "Ghost Rider" about what behavior is acceptable when in costume/ character. But the film also demonstrates why I never want to go to the Superman Festival in Metropolis, Illinois.
The biggest issue was that the movie raised literally dozens of serious questions about the subjects of the film, and then does nothing to resolve those questions. In effect, you feel almost as if you know less about the subjects at the conclusion of the film than you did at the beginning, and its a frustrating way to view a documentary.
The film's subjects somewhat casually tell stories which demand follow up, but the film never does the work for the viewer. Our Batman tells tales of working in the Italian mob, killing the family of a former lover, and acting as an enforcer. Superman claims to be the child of actress Sandy Dennis, while Ms. Dennis's family claims she never had any children. Our Hulk discusses being homeless, but we're never told why. And Wonder Woman isn't much of a mystery, but we never get why she and her husband split, but the fact that they married two weeks after meeting sort of suggests what may have happened.
The film's creators spend entirely too much time on cinematography and still photos and almost none actually crafting the story. They mostly take the folks involved at their word, even when their spouses are saying "you can only believe 50% of what he says." The fact that the producers didn't chase these clues down (possibly to reveal that the guy playing Batman was responsible for the deaths of many people) goes beyond laziness and into outright irresponsibility. If Batman was lying or believes what he says, he needs help. And so they send him to the shrink in a full Batman outfit.
There's never a question of where the money came from for the costumes in the first place. There's never a question of why the subjetcs chose the character they did, or what they actually know about the character (pretty clearly in the case of Dennis: a lot). Heck, there's never even a question of "is dressing as a superhero on Hollywood Boulevard the best investment of your time if you want to be a serious actor?" Like so many Hollywood producers who've generated so many bad, bad super-hero movies, to the documentarians, the costumes are just a prop on the way to a paycheck. But I suspect that's a complaint only a comic nerd like myself might have.
The documentary seems to want for the audience to root for and support the characters, but there's simply no reason given as to "why"? If they aren't putting on the costumes to make the world a better place, but for self-promotion, and this is the step they've taken toward their goals of money and power, why should I care if they fail or succeed?
Part of this, I suspect, is that the filmmakers are in line with the platitudes provided by the film's subjects regarding the movie industry's placement of value on fame and money. Perhaps the film is intended to indict this idea, but it seems to be cheerleading the subjects.
The omissions of the film act as a huge distraction and mostly point out that, aside from long, lingering views of Dennis's Superman memoribilia-rich apartment, they just don't have much to show. A quick trip to Wonder Woman's hometown suggest she had a mother who indulged her every whim and may hvae chosen poorly when she gave up an iron grip on a town of 2000 for asking for tips for dressing as Wonder Woman.
Interesting characters, perhaps... but perhaps the movie could have spent less time on musical interludes of the Hulk in litter strewn alleys and more asking him "Hey, four years on the street? How did that happen? And why didn't you just go home to North Carolina?"
The sad answer to a lot of these questions is probably: the person is crazy or not-all-there. And absolutely no evidence is given to the contrary.
In short, I can't really recommend the film. My hope was that it would be more about the histories of the subjects, but instead the producers chose to just focus on the present tense of the situation, half of which seems to be a steady stream of fabrications.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
REVIEW: Justice League: New Frontier
Well, Anonymous, I watched the movie, so here we go.
New Frontier
I liked it.
Like any movie from a book, JL: New Frontier does not completely manage to capture what made the book great, but it does a pretty darn good job of translating the comic to animated format. Rather than beat around the bush, I will say that the single biggest problem with the movie is that at 75ish minutes, the movie feels about 20-30 minutes too short.
I'm not sure if viewers of the movie are going to necessarily miss the bits about Dinosaur Island (from Weird War Tales), the greater development of a few plotlines, or more about the Challengers. But they may want to see more of the Superman/ Lois relationship, get a better feel for the existing relationships among the characters, and maybe get a bit more background on The Flash.
I don't envy director Dave Bullock, or writer Stan Berkowitz. New Frontier as a comic was a sprawling epic, taking place over an extended period of time and containing both explicit and implicit inclusion of historical events and a truckload of DC publishing history. Whomever the powers that be at TimeWarner might be, they've been kind enough to greenlight this sort of project and short-sighted enough to dictate the same running time for children's movies.
New Frontier is PG-13, suggesting that DC Animated expected the movie to reach an older audience than, say, the latest installment of the Air Bud puppies series. One of the oddities of comics and their translation to television (especially to animation) is that what happens in comics is often PG to PG-13 rated. And with the opening sequences taking place in a warfield in Korea in the final days of the Korean War, they don't pull too many punches.
Whether the voice talent took part as a lark or because the pay was right, this movie has a great voice cast. Kyle MacLachlan as Superman, Jeremy Sisto's Batman is a worthy heir to Kevin Conroy. Lucy Lawless is a good Wonder Woman, and I was a fan of Vicki Lewis as Iris, and Brooke Shields as Carol Ferris. David Boreanaz of Angel fame plays Hal Jordan, and Miguel Ferrer is a great Martian Manhunter.
The art-style approximates artist Darwyn Cooke's original conception, under the steady guidance of director Dave Bullock. Coincidentally, I used to really like Bullock's cover work on Superman comics about three or four years ago, as he shared a bit of a retro-style with Cooke. Some will make the mistake of believing the late-50's style of cartoon art is imitating The Incredibles, but that's an unfortunate coincidence. New Frontier pre-dates the release of the Incredibles. I did miss some of the characterization, especially of Wonder Woman, that Cooke brought to the page, but budgetary concerns and a slightly more modern style was probably required for a general audience.
The plot holds up well, and in place of the sprawling story of the original mini-series/ graphic novel, the story is tightened up nicely in the film, with most of the major beats getting attention. From The Flash is Vegas, to the origin of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, it's pretty well covered. The overarching storyline of The Center, that holds the film together, was surprisingly well-paced and handled with an appreciable amount of narrative economy, all while building tension.
The action scenes are very well choreographed and maturely handled. There's a great big-screen feel to the whole movie with well-staged scenes, from art direction to "blocking".
There are some scenes where they've taken some liberties, and where they've integrated sequences, etc... but as far as a film goes, I don't have any complaints.
Folks not particularly familiar with the Justice League or superheroes beyond Batman and Superman will find something to like.
Folks who are DC geeks will find a bag of things to enjoy, from the Challengers of the Unknown just sort of being there, to Madamoiselle Marie as a Fed. It's just a lot of fun.
Extras:
The preview copy I received was not the two-disc set, but did contain the film and a short documentary on the history of the Justice League.
Superman/ Doomsday contained a similar documentary, produced as a companion piece to the movie you may have just finished watching.
In this case, the documentary covered the publishing history of the Justice League, and contains some great interviews from folks who were there, or who worked with the original creators (many of whom, like Gardner Fox, have passed). Comic geeks will be excited to see the faces and hear the comments from well-known creators, but may have known some or much of the history of the Justice League of America. Non-comic geeks may be surprised at the grown men talking so lovingly about the Super Friends, but will still enjoy.
On the Whole:
I think this came out extremely well. It's tough to separate out my love of the original book from the movie, and that works in two ways. I am somewhat bothered by what was excised for time, but I'm also finding it hard to pick at the movie too much as it animates and brings to life a comic I think is top notch.
If there's one thing I think was missed, its at the very end when Lois sees Superman again. I recall seeing that page the first time I read the comic and felt it was just a perfect Superman moment. If comics can slow when you read and really impress a feeling upon you, Cooke had pulled it off. Here, I kind of felt it was rushed. But, you know, 75 minutes.
I still recommend. I will mention that I wouldn't show this to, say, very, very young kids. But if they can handle Star Wars, they can handle this.
New Frontier
I liked it.
Like any movie from a book, JL: New Frontier does not completely manage to capture what made the book great, but it does a pretty darn good job of translating the comic to animated format. Rather than beat around the bush, I will say that the single biggest problem with the movie is that at 75ish minutes, the movie feels about 20-30 minutes too short.
I'm not sure if viewers of the movie are going to necessarily miss the bits about Dinosaur Island (from Weird War Tales), the greater development of a few plotlines, or more about the Challengers. But they may want to see more of the Superman/ Lois relationship, get a better feel for the existing relationships among the characters, and maybe get a bit more background on The Flash.
I don't envy director Dave Bullock, or writer Stan Berkowitz. New Frontier as a comic was a sprawling epic, taking place over an extended period of time and containing both explicit and implicit inclusion of historical events and a truckload of DC publishing history. Whomever the powers that be at TimeWarner might be, they've been kind enough to greenlight this sort of project and short-sighted enough to dictate the same running time for children's movies.
New Frontier is PG-13, suggesting that DC Animated expected the movie to reach an older audience than, say, the latest installment of the Air Bud puppies series. One of the oddities of comics and their translation to television (especially to animation) is that what happens in comics is often PG to PG-13 rated. And with the opening sequences taking place in a warfield in Korea in the final days of the Korean War, they don't pull too many punches.
Whether the voice talent took part as a lark or because the pay was right, this movie has a great voice cast. Kyle MacLachlan as Superman, Jeremy Sisto's Batman is a worthy heir to Kevin Conroy. Lucy Lawless is a good Wonder Woman, and I was a fan of Vicki Lewis as Iris, and Brooke Shields as Carol Ferris. David Boreanaz of Angel fame plays Hal Jordan, and Miguel Ferrer is a great Martian Manhunter.
The art-style approximates artist Darwyn Cooke's original conception, under the steady guidance of director Dave Bullock. Coincidentally, I used to really like Bullock's cover work on Superman comics about three or four years ago, as he shared a bit of a retro-style with Cooke. Some will make the mistake of believing the late-50's style of cartoon art is imitating The Incredibles, but that's an unfortunate coincidence. New Frontier pre-dates the release of the Incredibles. I did miss some of the characterization, especially of Wonder Woman, that Cooke brought to the page, but budgetary concerns and a slightly more modern style was probably required for a general audience.
The plot holds up well, and in place of the sprawling story of the original mini-series/ graphic novel, the story is tightened up nicely in the film, with most of the major beats getting attention. From The Flash is Vegas, to the origin of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, it's pretty well covered. The overarching storyline of The Center, that holds the film together, was surprisingly well-paced and handled with an appreciable amount of narrative economy, all while building tension.
The action scenes are very well choreographed and maturely handled. There's a great big-screen feel to the whole movie with well-staged scenes, from art direction to "blocking".
There are some scenes where they've taken some liberties, and where they've integrated sequences, etc... but as far as a film goes, I don't have any complaints.
Folks not particularly familiar with the Justice League or superheroes beyond Batman and Superman will find something to like.
Folks who are DC geeks will find a bag of things to enjoy, from the Challengers of the Unknown just sort of being there, to Madamoiselle Marie as a Fed. It's just a lot of fun.
Extras:
The preview copy I received was not the two-disc set, but did contain the film and a short documentary on the history of the Justice League.
Superman/ Doomsday contained a similar documentary, produced as a companion piece to the movie you may have just finished watching.
In this case, the documentary covered the publishing history of the Justice League, and contains some great interviews from folks who were there, or who worked with the original creators (many of whom, like Gardner Fox, have passed). Comic geeks will be excited to see the faces and hear the comments from well-known creators, but may have known some or much of the history of the Justice League of America. Non-comic geeks may be surprised at the grown men talking so lovingly about the Super Friends, but will still enjoy.
On the Whole:
I think this came out extremely well. It's tough to separate out my love of the original book from the movie, and that works in two ways. I am somewhat bothered by what was excised for time, but I'm also finding it hard to pick at the movie too much as it animates and brings to life a comic I think is top notch.
If there's one thing I think was missed, its at the very end when Lois sees Superman again. I recall seeing that page the first time I read the comic and felt it was just a perfect Superman moment. If comics can slow when you read and really impress a feeling upon you, Cooke had pulled it off. Here, I kind of felt it was rushed. But, you know, 75 minutes.
I still recommend. I will mention that I wouldn't show this to, say, very, very young kids. But if they can handle Star Wars, they can handle this.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Why So Serious?
Thanks to Randy for forwarding the first poster for the upcoming movie "The Dark Knight".
Cesar Romero this is not.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Adam West: Dark Knight
If your copy of Dark Knight Returns is as mangled and mutilated from dozens of readings as mine is, then you will understand the following. Otherwise... not so much.
Here for more.
Here for more.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Dark Knight Photos
Jamie randomly wanted to watch "Batman Begins" this evening. Which reminded me of a link Randy sent me earlier today.
Photos from the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight
go here
The photos reveal that the Batsuit may be the first functional looking Batsuit in any live version of Batman I can think of. For once, Batman can turn his head, and he's not wearing an ill-fitting unitard.
Add in an oddly pragmatic looking Joker, and... yeah. Sure, why not.
Photos from the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight
go here
The photos reveal that the Batsuit may be the first functional looking Batsuit in any live version of Batman I can think of. For once, Batman can turn his head, and he's not wearing an ill-fitting unitard.
Add in an oddly pragmatic looking Joker, and... yeah. Sure, why not.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
More Batman
Der Batpod
More interesting stuff coming out from the new Batman flick. Looks like how the last film's Batmobile was ostensibly a car, this must be a Batman moped.
Also, I just remembered that Maggie Gyllenhaal is in the upcoming film. I know Gyllenhaal is one of those polarizing forces for dudes... She's just not everybody's cup of tea. But I come down on the pro-Maggie side of the fence.
Viva la Gyllenhaal. And the Batpod.
Monday, June 18, 2007
New Batsuit
Click on picture for higher resolution/ bigger image. You can read the text.
Thanks to Randy and others who sent me this pic.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Batman is crazy
I confess...
I am still not sure I got Frank Miller's "All Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder". At least not until issue 5, which came out last week. And I'm still not sure I get it.
But Miller's decision between "Batman: Year One" and "Dark Knight Strikes Again" to portray the Justice League as a bunch of maniacs is sort of interesting, even when you feel like the comic is mostly out of control. And, no, I don't think Jim Lee is the right choice to draw the book. Except when he is. But I still sort of wish Miller had drawn this page himself.
Click on the pic to see the page full sized.
Anyway, for some reason I went from "?" to "...really?" on this book last week.
Because somehow the Justice League all being a bunch of nutjobs is a good idea, even if it doesn't work in Earth-1 continuity. It's sort of like getting in a car with a bunch of guys you don't really know very well and driving around at 100 mph on dirt roads. It's probably a terrible idea, and you start out kind of freaked out, but after a while, you either start laughing with everyone else or just make yourself miserable.
Like it or not, comics needs Frank Miller's Batman.
I am still not sure I got Frank Miller's "All Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder". At least not until issue 5, which came out last week. And I'm still not sure I get it.
But Miller's decision between "Batman: Year One" and "Dark Knight Strikes Again" to portray the Justice League as a bunch of maniacs is sort of interesting, even when you feel like the comic is mostly out of control. And, no, I don't think Jim Lee is the right choice to draw the book. Except when he is. But I still sort of wish Miller had drawn this page himself.
Click on the pic to see the page full sized.
Anyway, for some reason I went from "?" to "...really?" on this book last week.
Because somehow the Justice League all being a bunch of nutjobs is a good idea, even if it doesn't work in Earth-1 continuity. It's sort of like getting in a car with a bunch of guys you don't really know very well and driving around at 100 mph on dirt roads. It's probably a terrible idea, and you start out kind of freaked out, but after a while, you either start laughing with everyone else or just make yourself miserable.
Like it or not, comics needs Frank Miller's Batman.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Harvey Dent and Answering Questions
Hey, Leaguers.
Would you vote for Harvey Dent for DA? If this means anything to you, I'd click on the link and then let the image roll over.
The weekend was very busy as weekends tend to be when one is employed. Friday was dinner and margaritas with Matt and Nicole. Saturday was Spider-Man 3 with the Shaws. And Saturday night I began Wii Quest '07. There are no Wii's for sale in South Austin.
Sunday we did some serious yard work, I hung my flag for Memorial Day, and then crashed for a bit. We wound up at Nicole's house for dinner with the Garcia's. It seems Letty is now sporting dual French/US citzenship. So Letty is now one of us Amerikaners. God help her.
And that was it. Busy weekend. I ot four months worth of comics bagged and boarded, but not sorted and entered into the database (that has top happen sooner or later this week). Matt might be staying at our house in the evenings as he sorts out his condo/living situation.
And that's about it.
I am amazed at all of the traffic from my short post asking for questions.
1) Que tegusta hacer cuando jugar con unicornes?
I like to take them in the tub.
2) What's wrong with your stats? An average of 244 visitors/day not enough for you?
The high number is deceptive. It's literally a 95+% looking for pictures. Mostly of naked Supergirl. (Hello Google pre-verts!)
3) Why do you worry so much about how many people are reading your site?
I don't worry about how many people are reading. I worry about people returning. And participating. Or just saying "hi".
4) It all comes down to: do you enjoy it?
Sometimes. Most of the time. But sometimes not.
5) I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the new CBS show, Kid Nation.
I think it's a concept that should have been explored with Survivor, but instead they turned Survivor into Double Dare.
6) The bit about the girl who I couldn't date because she was really into mountain biking....
I know it was confusing, but Jamie + mountain biking = unlikely.
No, that was a my analogy for my former, short lived job. We had very different ideas regarding what I would be doing for a living.
7) I think the RSS stuff has worked itself out.
8) If the only people that read are your Loyal Leaguers and a few randoms that stumble across it, does that make it less fun?
I guess I would compare hosting this blog to, oh, say... dinner theater. It's kind of hacky and dumb, but people show up, if just for the spaghetti. But I'm sort of flying solo up here on the creaky stage, trying to put on a performance every evening. I don't know how many of you have been in a play, but when you're in a show, you can't see the audience. All you can see are the lights. And that's sort of what it's like running this joint. I have no idea who is out there, if I know the people, what sort of people they are. Sure, a few friends said they'd show up, but I can't see them and I don't know where they are.
And every once in a while there's a stretch where the audience doesn't give you so much as a polite cough to let you know they're out there. You think you can kind of see the outline of a few heads, but you finish a big show-stopper, and all you can hear is yourself breathing a bit too hard. Or else you can hear someone in the audience arguing with the wait staff.
That's not to say I'm seeking applause, but as I often say, it's the Leaguers who make it all worthwhile. And sometimes when you've gone for a stretch and you have no idea if anyone is even showing up (or else the place is being flooded with senior citizens for the Tuesday Night $2.00 special, who aren't going to watch the show, anyway), you sort of want to say, "Okay, let's not run the show tonight."
And, anyway... Blogging takes time. And it's work, even when it's fun.
So, yeah, sometimes you want to take a look out form behind the curtain to see how many are in the house before you bother to get into costume.
9) Maybe you should have guest host, like they do occasionally on the Late Show or Tonight Show. So you start to feel burned out...turn it over to Stephen Harms for a week. Or Randy or Jim D.
I dunno. It's sort of a personal journal. That's a bit like letting your borther fill in your diary because you're out of town for a few days.
So, anyway, I hope this answers some questions.
Hope everyone is doing well.
Would you vote for Harvey Dent for DA? If this means anything to you, I'd click on the link and then let the image roll over.
The weekend was very busy as weekends tend to be when one is employed. Friday was dinner and margaritas with Matt and Nicole. Saturday was Spider-Man 3 with the Shaws. And Saturday night I began Wii Quest '07. There are no Wii's for sale in South Austin.
Sunday we did some serious yard work, I hung my flag for Memorial Day, and then crashed for a bit. We wound up at Nicole's house for dinner with the Garcia's. It seems Letty is now sporting dual French/US citzenship. So Letty is now one of us Amerikaners. God help her.
And that was it. Busy weekend. I ot four months worth of comics bagged and boarded, but not sorted and entered into the database (that has top happen sooner or later this week). Matt might be staying at our house in the evenings as he sorts out his condo/living situation.
And that's about it.
I am amazed at all of the traffic from my short post asking for questions.
1) Que tegusta hacer cuando jugar con unicornes?
I like to take them in the tub.
2) What's wrong with your stats? An average of 244 visitors/day not enough for you?
The high number is deceptive. It's literally a 95+% looking for pictures. Mostly of naked Supergirl. (Hello Google pre-verts!)
3) Why do you worry so much about how many people are reading your site?
I don't worry about how many people are reading. I worry about people returning. And participating. Or just saying "hi".
4) It all comes down to: do you enjoy it?
Sometimes. Most of the time. But sometimes not.
5) I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the new CBS show, Kid Nation.
I think it's a concept that should have been explored with Survivor, but instead they turned Survivor into Double Dare.
6) The bit about the girl who I couldn't date because she was really into mountain biking....
I know it was confusing, but Jamie + mountain biking = unlikely.
No, that was a my analogy for my former, short lived job. We had very different ideas regarding what I would be doing for a living.
7) I think the RSS stuff has worked itself out.
8) If the only people that read are your Loyal Leaguers and a few randoms that stumble across it, does that make it less fun?
I guess I would compare hosting this blog to, oh, say... dinner theater. It's kind of hacky and dumb, but people show up, if just for the spaghetti. But I'm sort of flying solo up here on the creaky stage, trying to put on a performance every evening. I don't know how many of you have been in a play, but when you're in a show, you can't see the audience. All you can see are the lights. And that's sort of what it's like running this joint. I have no idea who is out there, if I know the people, what sort of people they are. Sure, a few friends said they'd show up, but I can't see them and I don't know where they are.
And every once in a while there's a stretch where the audience doesn't give you so much as a polite cough to let you know they're out there. You think you can kind of see the outline of a few heads, but you finish a big show-stopper, and all you can hear is yourself breathing a bit too hard. Or else you can hear someone in the audience arguing with the wait staff.
That's not to say I'm seeking applause, but as I often say, it's the Leaguers who make it all worthwhile. And sometimes when you've gone for a stretch and you have no idea if anyone is even showing up (or else the place is being flooded with senior citizens for the Tuesday Night $2.00 special, who aren't going to watch the show, anyway), you sort of want to say, "Okay, let's not run the show tonight."
And, anyway... Blogging takes time. And it's work, even when it's fun.
So, yeah, sometimes you want to take a look out form behind the curtain to see how many are in the house before you bother to get into costume.
9) Maybe you should have guest host, like they do occasionally on the Late Show or Tonight Show. So you start to feel burned out...turn it over to Stephen Harms for a week. Or Randy or Jim D.
I dunno. It's sort of a personal journal. That's a bit like letting your borther fill in your diary because you're out of town for a few days.
So, anyway, I hope this answers some questions.
Hope everyone is doing well.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
How to leave The League speechless #215
courtesy: Chris's Invincible Super-Blog
PLUS: This story on why the Batmobile may be more trouble than its worth.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Orson Welles: Dark Knight Detective
Check it out. Shoemaker sends an article from a few years ago by comic scribe Mark (Ultimates) Millar.
I knew that American icon Orson Welles had once portrayed "The Shadow" on a radio show, but I wasn't aware that at one point Welles had been in development on a "Batman" movie.
Read more here.
This sounds totally amazing, if true. I'd never heard this before, and I've seen no evidence any other place. But, what the hell... I choose to believe it because it sounds pretty kick-ass.
Check it out. Shoemaker sends an article from a few years ago by comic scribe Mark (Ultimates) Millar.
I knew that American icon Orson Welles had once portrayed "The Shadow" on a radio show, but I wasn't aware that at one point Welles had been in development on a "Batman" movie.
Read more here.
This sounds totally amazing, if true. I'd never heard this before, and I've seen no evidence any other place. But, what the hell... I choose to believe it because it sounds pretty kick-ass.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
All-Star Batman and Robin Review
Hey, here's another review of All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder from in the imcomparable Return to Comics.
Hey, here's another review of All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder from in the imcomparable Return to Comics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
