|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 20, 2011 15:50:33 GMT -5
Thanks very much, kind sir! And while I have your ear, or eye as the case may be, could you be so kind as to recommend a DC comic shop, preferably in the DuPont Circle neighborhood? I'll be in Washington for around 10 days in July, and may need a diversion here or there! Many thanks. Doug Oh wow, the theater I work for is next to the DuPont Circle neighborhood-! That's the Metro stop we refer people to, in fact. Oh, the bitter irony-- a much-beloved independent little comic shop called Big Monkey Comics wasn't far from there at all-- but it closed up just a few short months ago. Beyond that, hmm, they do kind of disperse either outward (College Park, Silver Spring, Vienna) or to places that don't have a reasonably close Metro stop (Georgetown). The only one I hit semi-regularly anymore (so many have gone under) is one of the Big Planet Comics chain--- the College Park location (Univ. of MD). And it's a nice store. Clean, well maintained-- not much back-issue selection, but I've always liked the fellows that work there. They trend a little more "normal" than "comic-geeky". But you'd definitely need to drive up to it. Another shop that's been around for- wow- more than 25 years is up in Silver Spring, MD. It's about 3 or 4 blocks from the Silver Spring metro-- used to walk it every week or so. It's called Alliance Comics these days-- haven't been there in at least a couple of years, though. Sadly, it's not the old-style shop anymore where you could do a bit of bartering w/ a sympathetic salesperson. I don't think, beyond that, that I've been in any of the stores you'd find in a google search for LCS's. Boy, and you've made me realize that two of my other "main" ones (huge, messy, independent one in College Park, and a tiny, brave one 'way up in Laurel) have both shuttered in very recent years. Man, now I'm all depressed. . . better get owene to post another old review. . . Hey, whatcha comin' up to our neck of the woods for? Do you have any inkling of what the weather is like here in July-?? Are you being punished- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 20, 2011 7:34:27 GMT -5
Not much chat 'round here about this film. 'Course it's somewhat outside of our core mission statement. . .
HBSon & HBDaught took me to see it yesterday (11:45 matinee; $8 each in 3D-- bonus!). And again, it definitely benefited from the unnecessarily lowered expectations generated by the mediocre reviews. It really was a fine, engaging, entertaining superhero film-- again, formulaic- but there is NO WAY to avoid that in this genre and remain remotely true to the (relentlessly, fanatically) formulaic source material. On the whole, I think it was probably a better movie than THOR, even, but I'm not sure it will be perceived as such, because the individual performances in Thor were generally much more striking and often simply superior. And oddly enough, the movie was better than its own previews led me to expect. Ryan Reynolds was fine. I wish he had a bit more substantial of a voice-- but that's the way it goes (lord, they shouldn't have let him sing along w/ a jukebox-!). HBDaught was the more caught-up in it, and turned to me immediately as the credits started and said "there's going to be one more piece"---- regarding an important unresolved subplot. She completely gets it. *sniff*- she's her daddy's girl, she is--!
They both expressed an interest in having me pull out Emerald Dawn & Emerald Dawn II--- so maybe mission accomplished on the movie's part, eh?
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 20, 2011 7:03:49 GMT -5
Oh. Wow. It's a MOMENTOUS birthday today--! DLW66-!!! Our board's historically most prolific poster (in spite of that trifling "Bronze Age Babies" blog-distraction-thingy always pulling his time away from us folks here what loves him. . . ); our only actual honest-to-goodness Jarvis-head; someone whom Van P himself surely looks nervously for over his shoulder. Oh indeed, a towering figure in our community here-! So-- what's the protocol? Do we surrender tribute or offer sacrifices or something? Vie for the honor of being selected as members of your entourage (or is "posse", now? Or wait-- maybe it's "crew")? Ah, we are indeed at your disposal, sir! (Actually, bobc would be a good bodyguard-type, as he does a lot of weight-lifting and stuff. Maybe pick him first. Me, I'm more the food-taster type. . . ) Happy B-day! ;D ;D ;D HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 19, 2011 5:34:28 GMT -5
Okay, okay-- Shiryu's not "missing" per se-- just been a couple of weeks, but this seemed like the appropriate spot for an off-topic-ish shout-out. . .
Shir! Did you get out there and vote last week? Participate in the Italian people's absolutely commendable demand for an accountable gov't? From the metroDC perspective, this was a tremendous breath of fresh air. . . !
In my youth, as an "arts" person, I was generally ambivalent about voting. My much-smarter wife quickly impressed upon me the fact that properly participating in a democracy is nothing less than a civic duty and responsibility. The darn "R" word, again. And since I'm sure Peter Parker never misses a date at the polls, I'm bound to do no less. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 19, 2011 5:17:54 GMT -5
Ahhh, back in the ol' comfort zone. Thanks a million, owen!
Been many years since I read this issue in the first Essential Elements volume. Am I correct in remembering that the portrayal of the Vulture's one-bird, panic-inducing crime-wave was a wee bit over the top? The entirety of the New York City law-enforcement community is so unable to cope with a senior citizen in a flying bird suit, that said old-guy is able to publicly taunt them, announce his crimes, and still carry them off?
Vulture is the perfect example, though, of a villain who, even as a kid, I thought was an implausible threat or challenge for Spidey. . . and yet was happy to buy into him unreservedly 'cause he was fun & handled well. I mean, the creaky old-guy angle is what's always been the enjoyable hook with him, along with crotchety amorality and sense of pride and entitlement. I mean-- the guy's got nothin'-! (Or didn't for a long time) Like Doc Ock, he has no superpowers whatsoever. Heck, like Ock, he's spent most of his life in markedly non-physical activity. Why, Uncle Ben was probably more fit for a brisk hand-to-hand with Spidey, y'know?
It probably would be acceptable to assume that Spidey was hampered in those earlier battles by the fact that he couldn't actually let loose at all for fear of killing the old grub outright. Hence, the battles become protracted exercises in battling a determined foe even while trying to preserve his fragile corporeal form.
Thanks again, owen-- feelin' better already!
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 18, 2011 5:10:02 GMT -5
*sigh* Say, Owen-- You have another early silver-age groaner (or even classic masterpiece?) to throw our way? I've glummed myself out reflecting on EMHs, and those posts always chipper me right back up. . .
(yer a pal-- ;D)
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 18, 2011 4:56:55 GMT -5
No, call me a pragmatic fatalist (or a fatalistic pragmatist). . . but I don't think it could be more clear that the series is done. This was a terrific, informative interview that was just about as candid as it could be without pushing the bounds of prudent professionalism-- but here are what look like the telling points to my eye:
1) Without actually directly saying so, Josh clearly goes out of his way to "neither confirm nor deny" the prospects of a Season 3. The few possible Season 3 elements he discusses are given w/ the caveat that they would have been for "his" Season 3, had he been still on board.
2) He discusses at length the fine folks who came on to wrap up the Season 2 process-- but the conversation never goes past that point. (Boy, nor does that do anything to build fan loyalty or enthusiasm, eh?)
3) He points out that the entire creative team has moved on at this point-- not a likely circumstance for a successful show that certainly reflects the love of those doing it. The assumption is that the show is no longer going to be there for them to work on.
4) It sounds like greenlights on animated projects are being extinguished left and right. My take, from this interview, is that they committed to a huge flurry of animated series at the outset of this latest boom, and may have overestimated by a long shot what the economic return would be. Pretty much every series Josh mentioned was also mentioned as being cancelled even as further development was being hoped for.
5) Oh I hate to be so gloomy, but I don't see the DVD sales as having any bearing at all on going ahead w/ another season. I think the assumption is that the (lamely-promoted; demographically-misplaced; Disney-misunderstood) series hasn't produced nearly enough revenue. The fan-based demand will be measured via television ratings as opposed to DVD sales, I daresay. The DVD sales come across as simply an expected method of maximizing potential income from the series wherever possible.
Geeze- denial, anger, bargaining, depression. . . and now acceptance. I've gone through the five stages of grief for this series, and the second season has yet to air!
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 17, 2011 12:32:18 GMT -5
FF, I'm tagging you w/ an exalt for tracking down & sharing something this cool. I had no idea whatsoever that Jack Davis had ever done this kind of work-- it's entrancing. You know what it reminds me of? And I mean, a LOT-? Marvel's "The 'NAM" series from the late 80's. Visually gripping, with the greater degree of stylization actually making it somehow more real (which is so incredibly counter-intuitive and tough to pull off). If those creators didn't acknowledge some influence from Mr. Davis, I daresay they weren't being altogether truthful. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 17, 2011 8:07:29 GMT -5
Bendis had nothing to do with the movie starfoxx. I was talking about the Destroyer not Bendis. I'm pretty sure that BMB's name was indeed included in the movie credits-- part of a group of about four Marvel Enterprises consultant-types. Hard to tell at all how much he'd actually directly contribute at that status-level, though. But considering he's Mr.Avengers, and that the movie is part of the huge Avengers movie project (with entire careers riding on its success, I'm sure), I can see where his input would carry some weight. The Destroyer, I agree, was not particularly effective in this film-- and HB-Son found it a major disappointment. You're right, GF-- you can hardly even call it a character at all, because it's mindless. It is nothing more than a rather cool-looking, magic-fueled, killer robot-- which really just means it's a big, powerful weapon of mass destruction (or assassination, if needed). The only thing that has ever made it an interesting device for me in Thor's book over the years is the fact that it supposedly CANNOT BE BEATEN in conventional battle-- by Thor or anyone. So every time it gets loose there's the possibility that Thor could really lose this time, and he's going to take a horrendous, uncharacteristic pounding at the very least. But here, once Thor is resuscitated & reunited w/ his hammer, it's a brief, conventional "tough" skirmish, and then the robot is dispatched. Extremely poor use of what should be an A-level threat. And a perfect example of a valid criticism of the film (and lots of superhero films, in fact): the oft-mentioned "Let's pack one more cool, big thing into the plot, Dude!" syndrome. Something like the Destroyer either needs to be the focus of the entire plot, or else it needs to not be used at all. If my reaction at the resolution of what should be an epic battle is, "That's it-?", then there are seriously bad judgments being made up and down the line of the entire creative process. (Climactic last battle in Iron Man 2-- showdown with Rhodey & Tony facing Whiplash-guy? Perfect example. Really damaged an otherwise enjoyable enough film.) HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 15, 2011 7:56:02 GMT -5
Not my favorite Neal Adams work. Does Iron Fist fly now? And the Thing looks like he's made of peanut brittle. No depth and shadow in the linework at all. And the figures just don't make sense- Wolverine jumping in air to slash at the Goblin Ghost and Spidey looks ripped- that back belongs on a juicehead who does 300 lb lat pulls with a side of steroids...Maybe you can't go home again. Yep, I think he does sort of fly now--- kind of like the way Jack of Hearts used to. I think. I read the darned issue where Danny got upgraded when it came out, and I still can't remember the details clearly. [Hmm-- I'm failing in my responsibility of being the one "who reads it so you don't have to."] Neal Adams did just turn 70 a couple of days ago, I'll give him a touch of slack on that score--- although clearly his best work is well behind him. And it's neat to see him doing a cover, and all-- but yeah, there are noticeable problems. I do wonder if, in our mind's eye, we're all just completely used to seeing him inked by vintage Tom Palmer, and a different inker jars us? Well, no, maybe not- 'cause the composition doesn't work for me either. Also, tell me if you see this-- there's a distinctive "Jack Davis" feel to the pencils (Looooong time MAD magazine artist/writer; also drew Superfan about 40 years ago)-- particularly in the positions of feet and legs, and the way the faces are drawn. . . particularly Luke's. Once that crossed my mind, I couldn't not see Jack Davis. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 13, 2011 20:48:19 GMT -5
1-Mike Deodato Jr. 2-Steve Epting 3-George Perez The Avengers series has had some of the greatest artists pencilling the series, but these 3 will always be my faves....not just on Avengers. This is not quite the list that we tend to see on this board, but I'll tell you, I absolutely respect it. Deadato is quite the artistic chameleon-- able to change style and technique almost by writer-request, it would seem. His Incredible Hulk run in the 90's was big and dramatic-- but still overly dependent on that awful exaggerated-body "hot artist" style of the time. Then a few years later, he comes back to the re-booted Hulk with Bruce Jones writing, and although I was hating the direction of the book, I was completely overwhelmed by his incredibly nuanced, expressive, realistic artwork. It was an odd feeling, 'cause I was loving the art so much while hating the storyline with an equal passion. And Steve Epting-- heck, somewhere back in earlier threads I think I recall giving him a shout-out, 'cause I thought his fine, fine work on the title was often overlooked due to the fact that the Gatherers-era storylines have been less than well received historically. Tom Palmer, I believe, did a lot of the inking during that run? Very, very good work. George Perez-- heh, on that Ultimate Avengers DVD he pops up in some interviews. . . and he's just as delightful as folks around here have been saying--! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 13, 2011 20:35:59 GMT -5
They were trying to get Daredevil to join for a while I know it looks like a bad thing but something might work out for Daredevil. As long as Bendis has a good relationship with Marvel they will let him do whatever he wants. You know what's kind of funny is that so many of the Marvel heroes are probably on more comfortably personal terms with Matt Murdock than they are with Daredevil, since practically ALL of them have had him as a lawyer at some point or another (Incredible Hulk #'s 152 & 153--- just as an eye-rollingly predictable example). HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 12, 2011 7:14:32 GMT -5
Boy, DD fell off of my list sooo many years ago, I'm afraid. Sometime late in, or after, the Ann Nocenti/JRjr run. Incomprehensible storylines involving Mephisto, and a ZILLION Ultrons (or at least an Ultron graveyard), and Gorgon & Karnak as supporting characters, and. . . Mephisoto's daughter, was it?
BUT, be that as it may-- are you a resident Daredevil fan, then, Mr. Spasic? That would be a nice addition to our crew. My question at the moment is, didn't Bendis have a well-received run on DD awhile back? And did he handle the character well then, or was he guilty at that point of the shallow writing shortcuts/tricks that you've astutely pointed out here?
I mean, I am entirely devoid of optimism at this point (Avengers #13 has me still resolved to let my sub lapse in 4 months), but I'm just curious about the take on his previous turn w/ the character.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 12, 2011 5:59:38 GMT -5
US Avengers #188„Elementary, dear Avengers“ Mantlo/Byrne/Green After the adventure in Wundagore (#185 – 187) the Avengers are heading back to HQ. Without permission they overflow the soviet air-space and remark an incident down in a nuclear plant of the Red Army. There mutated the elements Phosphor, Vanadium, Karbon and Radium after an accident to evil super beings. After a discussion the Avengers lands the Quinjet and interferes to help the Red Army. In the first instance helpless, the Avengers are even in a second assault with an laser beamer are ultimately successful. At first blush is it a banal fight-story with common drawings. But interesting are the backgrounds. It alludes to the secret CIA- espionage flights over soviet territory from 50th – 70th and the shot down of the U2-aircraft pilot Gary Powers in 1957 (?) by the russians: Therefore is generating an agile and interesting discussion about obedience and disobedience and if the avengers have to help the “cold-war enemy” Red Army. Very well, this story! And I like these old-school issues much more than the new current Avenger issues appearing here in Germany. I definitely remember that this issue felt a little out of whack-- although the art went a long way towards making it readable. I notice that it was a step-in writing assignment for Bill Mantlo, which certainly would have contributed to the awkwardness. The whole humans-turned-into-sentient-humanoid-elements from the periodic table crux of the plot really falls off of the far edge of the plausibility scale--- even by very lax comic book standards-! I agree, though-- the subtler cold-war based tensions were the neater aspect of the issue (as well as the Falcon's unhappy status at that point. . . am I remembering correctly?) HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 9, 2011 8:42:53 GMT -5
Hunh. Well. . . I can see this both ways. I'm pretty darned sure Cap's team (the next one) was about to offer him membership 'way, 'way back sometime before issue #50-- but DD slipped out the back door or something to avoid it. So there's a precedent for the idea, at least. But man, if anyone is more of a natural solo-operator than Spidey, it would have to be DD.
However, that New Avengers team resembles nothing more than it does the old Defenders team after it had been well-established. Especially w/ Doc Strange, Luke Cage, and Spidey on hand (it became a book with a LOT of folks wandering in and out!). And, due in large part to Defenders Giant-Size #3, I've always associated Hornhead w/ the Defenders. . . so maybe this works out?
Say, is Daredevil indeed Matt Murdock again?
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 7, 2011 15:55:31 GMT -5
@ (I think, Herb Trimpe was the original artist, and Gil Kane famously drew his mask wrong.) Yep, Incredible Hulk #181, w/ brief intro & outro's in 180 & 182! (Heh-- you'll never catch ol' HB w/ his classic Hulk history down!). Welllllll, we should give the character credit where it's certainly due--- Thunderbird did in fact take out Count Nefaria (in his escape jet) himself at the end of that issue-- his ultimate sacrifice did indeed save the day. Geeze, those inane ani-men-- and I don't think it was ever explained how it was that they were working for Nefaria. Weren't they originally Savage Land creatures, or something?? I had NO idea that they'd tagged another character as Thunderbird (an Asian Indian with a distinctly Native American codename??), but of course I should have expected it. Ever since the unpleasantness caused by both DC & Marvel claiming the name "Captain Marvel", Marvel has gone to absurd lengths to ensure that it never lets a character name go idle long enough to be snagged by another company. One Warlock dies, and we soon get another in New Mutants. . . who dies RIGHT before the original one is resurrected. No one, single incarnation of Spiderwoman has ever been able to make sustained go of it. . . so we have a string of how many, now? Three? Four? The "Goliath" moniker has gone to three different guys (at least). "Ms. Marvel" gets canceled, and amazingly the name lives on w/ a lady wrestler who becomes a She- Thing. Our own Captain Marvel dies forever-- and we shortly after get a new Avenger who picks the name up. . . and then loses it again in time for the original one's SON to take up the name. Man, and this is all off the top of my head as I sit here-- I imagine this could be a thread all its own! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 7, 2011 12:11:30 GMT -5
bobc I'm dying to know what movie that was. BTW guys, the DVD of Green Lantern : Emerald Nights comes out today. I'll probably pick it up today. I'm not crazy about how every DC animated thing seems to be on another Earth, but we'll see. Perhaps we'll see a true first class X-men animated feature soon, though if the international team pops up I'd like to see that too. I thought the original Thunderbird had a lot of potential. It's a bit like the 90's cartoon when they introduced Morph, killed him off, and reconsidered the story possibilities. I can dream. John Proudstar, that was the original Thunderbird, right? I'm not sure if it was on a letters page, or a FOOM interview, or some other related editorial, but Claremont & his editor realized pretty much right after Giant-sized X-Men #1 (1st appearance of the "new" team) that Thunderbird/Proudstar didn't really add anything unique to the team at all, other than being very nearly a caricature of a Native American superhero. They pointed out that his power set wasn't distinctive or unique on the team, and that his abrasive, chip-on-the-shoulder temperament was already more interestingly embodied in Wolverine. Thus, they killed him off at the end of his third issue of existence. And, while he was undeniably noble and self-sacrificing, his demise carried absolutely none of the emotional resonance that they were clearly counting on for us readers at the time. 1) We simply didn't know the guy well at all, and the impression we did have was that he was generally unpleasant and surly. 2) The book was being published bi-monthly, which was just MURDER on trying to sustain any emotional investment in the story (man, it took FOREVER to make the jump to monthly!). 3) As sappy as it sounds, we were STILL stinging from the death of Gwen Stacey just a very few short years before. Any other subsequent deaths rang hollow for a long, long time. Ahhh, 'twas all before yer time, drew, m'lad! Comics, they was dif'rent then, aye. Half the drama was th' waitin' and th' anticipatin'--! None o' this "give it t'me NOW!" netroweb electronical computer fol-der-ol. . . (*spit*--- p-TINGGG!!) HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 7, 2011 8:34:42 GMT -5
HB--I can top that theater story, believe it or not. Back in the 80's I went to see some movie with a bunch of friends, and one of the friends was this loud-mouthed, uhhhhh big boned girl named Janet. The movie was bad and we couldn't wait to get out of there. When the lights went up, Janet hurled her large self out of the chair and saw a huge popcorn bucket lying on the floor. For reasons known only to Janet, she decided it would be a good idea to just haul off and kick that bucket with all of her strength! I think she meant for it to fly into the air as a prank, but unfortunately Janet's aim was slightly off. The bucket flew like a bullet, directly into the face of an older lady only 3 feet away. It was like BAM right in the face!!! Janet was mortified-- and ran, and the rest of us couldn't believe what we just witnessed! Humiliated, we all ran! I have no idea what happened to the lady who took the bucket blast to the face, but I do remember her looking rather stunned... Ahhhh--to be young and obnoxious again... Dude, I have bad news. I. . . I think you may be a mutant. With a theater-audience-proximity-disaster-probability-altering power. And. . . I'm not sure you've learned how to harness this power for the good of mankind just yet--- Oh lordy, that poor old lady. And yet--- I must confess that I did laugh out loud. . . (probably the extended influence of your power, I daresay). Hey, as to your mishap this weekend--- it occurred to me that the audience may have in fact mistaken you for some new, fancy, 3-D, sensory-accurate, prototype for the next generation of "Don't Add Your Soundtrack to the Movie" announcement clip! Why, the popcorn & Diet Coke-doused folks may have been particularly impressed with the verisimilitude. (Just goin' all-out, here, to give you an opportunity to regain your self-esteem & some shreds of dignity--- heaven knows we've ALL been in your shoes, eh? ;D) Your altruistic pal, HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2011 14:10:26 GMT -5
Hi Guys--I wouldn't say I disliked it, I just didn't love it the way I loved the other three. I found none of the kids very likable, with the exception of the Beast. I thought Emma Frost and Magneto stole the show, particularly EF. Of course, what happened to me right before the movie started could have colored my perception. I got there late and it was dark--and I was carrying two hotdogs, a diet Coke, and a bag of popcorn. Can you guess what happened next? BAM! I fell flat on my face, spraying the unfortunate people in the audience with popcorn and diet Coke!! If they weren't paying attention before, they sure were now!!! A guy said "Are you okay?" and I replied "I'm okay, just a little humiliated." I slunk back to the very rear of the theater, trying to avoid the mocking stares of the cruel movie goers! My favorite part was that I wore a plain white t-shirt, and when the lights came up I realized I had a large, attractive diet Coke stain right above my crotch. This. . . this is, like, the most awful movie-going experience ever--- ! Geeze, bobc, I am SO SORRY simply out of sympathy! I mean. . . you just. . . stuff happens sometimes, and . . . you can't undo it. . . Honestly, though, things like that really do effect one's ability to enjoy a film-- it's a given. Ya can't surrender to the world of the piece as readily, as it were. Yours in commiseration- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2011 8:36:32 GMT -5
Also saw the X-Men film w/ Son of HB yesterday (boy, what a dedicated group on this board!). Honestly, I had earlier considered not even seeing this film-- it seemed like such an obvious late cash-in on the X-Men's fading economic juggernaut (heh-- "juggernaut"-- heh). And I never caught much buzz about it. And it didn't seem to have a whole lot of publicity push. But geeze, pretty much every movie reviewer either liked it or REALLY liked it. And a lot of HBSon's gang saw it on Friday, and they unanimously LOVED it-- and those guys aren't X-Men savvy at all. One fellow, in fact, is pretty much dismissive of all things not Batman. So we went armed with low expectations but hopeful hearts--- and agree that we were highly rewarded.
It's a very, very good character-driven movie, which wisely avoids the industry norm of glossing over or hurrying past what makes the people tick in order to get to the "good stuff" of fight scenes and special effects extravaganza. If we don't fully understand and believe the relationship between Charles & Erik (and Mystique, in fact)-- then the climactic moment (attempting to NOT SPOIL, here), either seems contrived, or is simply unbelievable. And it wasn't-- it was, for me, moving. AS WAS the personal choice that Mystique made, and the resulting painful irony of her consequent decisions-- all of which would be easily missed if one were not fully involved in the film. Jennifer Lawrence's performance really drives the film, I think. And here's the thing: who brings Mystique more to life? The physically perfect supermodel Rebbecca Romjyn from the trilogy, or this perfectly lovely but "regular"-looking brilliant young actress?
Ohhhhh, I've been talking too much of late. I could still go on & on, but shan't. Bobc, ol' pal, I'll give a big Ebertian thumbs-up to your Siskellian thumbs-down. . . and we'll wait for Green Lantern, eh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 6, 2011 8:02:16 GMT -5
Aaaaaaaand I caught "Next Avengers" last night before bedtime. On the whole, yes, I think it's somewhat the better of the two DVD's-- but it's certainly an apples/oranges comparison, since it's obviously aimed at a much younger audience.
The plot/storyline was a vast improvement. . . and it was great to see Chris Yost's name for the screenplay credit! In earlier years, the fact that these young teenagers insist- at EVERY TURN- on doing exactly the opposite of what they're told/ordered/suggested/implored to do would have driven me banana boats. I would never have bought it. But now, as the FATHER OF TWO TEENAGERS-- OMIGOD!!!--- I swear, it was like a PAGE OUT OF MY LIFE!!! Rarely have I ever felt so sympathetic for a situation that Tony Stark was in! ;D ;D ;D Generally, while predictable, the writing and characterization managed a good level or two more depth than you normally expect from something targeted to this demographic.
Again, I thought the animation was fine. I'm probably not the best judge in that realm, though. Possibly a little too anime' for my tastes, but that style's not inappropriate here. Overall, the visual storytelling was effective and engaging-- Ultron's "fortress" was particularly cool in its sliding-component function.
I would say the voiceover direction may have been the strong factor in that realm-- managing to keep all of the younger talent believable and real, and not letting them push or get over the top.
Musical score was by FAR the most significant problem-- it literally pulled me out of the moment on several occasions. Hopelessly overdone and overwrought nearly all of the time, and very often the mood being evoked by the music wasn't entirely compatible with the events onscreen. I'm hearing sense of wonder, while I'm seeing sense of frenzy or panic. And waaaaaaay too heavy-handed in the "touching" moments-- Disney-esque at its worst.
Hey, and ironically enough, this was the second time in two days that the Incredible Hulk was brought in at the 11th hour to defeat the undefeatable foe! In ANOTHER terrific battle scene! Ahhh, it was a good weekend for ol' HB. . .
Overall grade: B; if viewed with a superhero-oriented youngster: B+
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2011 8:38:50 GMT -5
Heya drew-- I thought I'd move this bit of discussion to its own new thread, as I'm sort of getting lost in the omnibus that we're unwittingly creating in the Animated Avengers thread (a state that I have, admittedly, been instrumental in bringing about. . . ! Oy. . . ) Anyhoo-- I did pick up the Ultimate Avengers & Next Avengers "movies" yesterday, and watched the former along w/ its special features. And it wasn't a bad bit o' superhero entertainment. Solidly adequate-- with some definite strengths. The musical score was particularly good-- which goes a long way towards enhancing the dramatic experience. Certainly on a par with a lot of mainstream (smaller) film scoring. Voiceover work was generally quite good-- particularly liked Bruce Banner, as his was an unusually authentic, "real" sounding voice-type. Not at all the standard american-male-hero type at all (which most of the other guys still fell into. . . but at least they sounded unforced and natural). Animation was fine-- although it's a little startling to see a sexually alluring Black Widow, Betty Ross, and Wasp transferred from comic page to onscreen "cartoon" form. I particularly liked the opening WWII sequence. While I thought the (somewhat loose-ended) alien invasion squad was too easily dispatched, the resulting Hulk vs Everyone battle at the end was TERRIFIC! I'm never a fan, personally, of flat-out, homicidally-rampaging Hulk, BUT-- it was a great fight, and brother, he was moppin' up the floor with the entire team. Realistically, Steve & Jan should have been dead, and Hank crippled for life---- but, that's comics, folks! What I liked most? This DVD actually felt far more AVENGER-y to me than Millar's own comic did. That series never wasted even the smallest opportunity to be dark, unpleasant and, well, seedy, for want of a better word (although that may be the best one). The characters were relentlessly unsympathetic and always best kept at arm's length, and never gave me a reason to become invested in their world or their story. Not so w/ this film. Yep, we see the flaws-- but they're not as cripplingly severe, and thus we're able to relate to the characters (Marvel's original Prime Directive, as it were) and care about their fate, rather than just watch them like a slow-motion train wreck. Pacing could be quite sluggish at times. Dialog's "naturalism" in the talkier scenes often doesn't work well with an animation style where very subtle facial nuance is largely inaccessible. And the plot/storyline is kind of an unexplained mess upon my single viewing. What are these aliens after, again? Are they stranded here, or are they invaders? Where, exactly, are we at different points in the story?? But one must recognize that the entire plot is really a big ol' MacGuffin (see: Alfred Hitchcock) created to get this superteam in place. Grade: Very watchable B-minus. (Ask me about the Special Features, if you like). HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2011 6:09:13 GMT -5
In Italy there is a long-running joke about "The Battleship Potemkin" as an example of extremely fine movie (worldwide it's considered amongst the greatest films of all time) which no one wants to watch and those who do don't usually like it. On the other hand there are movies like Transformers which manage to string the right chords with the public, and that's no easy task. Is a fine movie which can't sell itself to the public really that much better than a bad movie which everybody likes? Say Shir, does the joke translate well for us non-Italian film-buffs out here? Oh, or is it more of an amusing referential comment, like- "Ghost Rider was a fine film. . . but it was no BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN!" We saw it in my film history class in college [he said, surrendering gleefully & wholeheartedly to the Call of the Unrelated Tangent], and it was presented more as being an extremely important film, as opposed to being a great one-- owing largely to Eisenstein's pioneering editing techniques, IIRC. The word "montage" comes to mind. . . The Odessa Steps sequence (the spectacled lady w/ her eye shot out; the baby carriage rolling relentlessly down the steps) being the iconic reference-point for this film. Now, this kind of thing is RIGHT up Sharkar's alley-- I will be stunned if she doesn't add a word or two! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2011 5:43:17 GMT -5
Ha! Yep, that's exactly the one I was thinking of. I think it was referred to around here again recently, in fact--- with Jack Kirby being the "Creator" and all. But, nope, I didn't care for the idea of it at all-- although it certainly wasn't badly executed. And I did appreciate that they didn't turn it into a big Mega-Event, etc. But it really pushed the outer boundaries of acceptable continuity for me, and sets an absolutely ridiculous precedent for how far Reed's abilities can take him. Granted, I'd have to read it again, but-- what now prevents Reed from going and fetching Johnny? Or anyone, for that matter? Does Reed (or Ben) even remember that this event took place? And, honestly, it was simply too easy for Reed to track Ben's "soul" to the great hereafter via scientific methods. Some barriers are better off never crossed, because once they are. . . then what? AND YET, as I said, I still prefer it to having somebody kill Ben off on a whim, and being stuck with his loss. I do feel it would be better to take any deaths right off of the editorial table unless a solid, SOLID case can be made for it from a long-term character/storyline/MU perspective. HB Well in fairness the story actually used long established FF canon. Reed just didn't invent a machine- he was actually using the one that Doom created to look for his mother in Hell (and as Reed pointed out- "is that the first place you'd look for your mother?"). So the machine that can take you to Heaven has been around since Doom's origin. Ben wasn't completely "dead"- he was on an extreme version of life support, fanning a very small spark that was still inside him. So it wasn't a full resurrection- it was bringing a soul back to a living body. And the details of heaven were a bit too overwhelming for them to keep as I recall so they don't have knowledge of what exactly transpired (this I could be wrong about, but it's what I recall). As for going back, God said no. He thought it was clever, but he wouldn't leave the same loophole open again. For me the story had a lot of heart and I can forgive the appearance of God because it's no more impossible than the Cosmic Cube, Beyonder, Celestials, Eternity etc... We've already opened the near omnipotent can of worms a hundred times, might as well go all out. . Thanks much, FF-- you directly answered some of those questions I had about elements that I wasn't recalling clearly. And you're right, credit is due to Waid for doing his research and finding enough precedent in the MU to satisfy continuity plausibility-- I'd forgotten much of that, myself. He certainly took impressive steps to successfully minimize the almost-unavoidable "hokiness"-factor that a story like this would be susceptible to. I mean, in 1963 Stan would have just had Reed whip out an experimental, transistor-powered, atomic soul-energy detecting ray that he "happened to be working on" about two panels after Ben's apparent demise. It would have some unforeseen effect- like creating a portal to the afterlife, f'rinstance. And the three of them would immediately hop right through it w/out any idea of what was on the other side. "Because it's the only chance we'll ever have to save our friend!" And yep, Waid did an admirable job of constructing his story and setting up the supporting details so it avoided this kind of groaning contrivance. Is my problem one of . . . scope, perhaps? Is that the right word? Even the hugely powerful, ancient, cosmic-and-beyond entities that you refer to (Celestials, Eternity, Beyonder, Cosmic Cube-- and I'm sure there are a few others) seem to acknowledge that they aren't the ultimate, highest power in the universe/multiverse (whooo! The multiverse! That whole concept adds a whole new wrinkle to a discussion like this, eh? Since it's also established that there's a governing body over THAT as well!). I've always thought it was best to just leave it that way, since by staying completely undefined, that Being or Non-being's tent can literally include the belief-system of every reader out there. Plus it doesn't draw a line in the sand of here's-the-final-ultimate-power-creator-of-the-universe that some OTHER writer will EVENTUALLY be tempted to trump with THEIR even MORE powerful "creator of the universe" razza-razza-razza-- Actually, though, I'm pleased that that hasn't come about since then. Maybe that whole event kinda fell below the radar for a lot of Marvel's creative staff? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2011 20:28:51 GMT -5
As long as he doesn't speak jive, I'm cool with it. And as long as he doesn't listen to Gangster Rap. . . . . and NOW Mephisto's addin' the sulfur to the water as it comes to a boil-! Ohhhhhh bobc, you just don't know when to quit. . . Say, here's the main thing w/ the actor playing Heimdall: I can't come up with another actor who could achieve such a fantastically effective minimalist performance. He hardly spoke, he hardly moved--BUT his presence was undeniable and riveting. I kept finding him the most interesting aspect of the scenes he was in. There was never any question that there was a HECK of a lot going on under that helmet and behind those cold yellow eyes--- even as he just stood there. . . not responding, as it were! In Stanislavsky's first book, I think (An Actor Prepares), he goes on about how an actor needs to produce these "rays" of intent, or meaning, or involvement, or some such (it was 25 years ago, friends-- a little slack, hmm?) that are communicable to the audience even without using any words, voice, face, or movement of any kind. I confess I really never bought into the idea (and Stanislavsky himself sort of downplays or dismisses a lot of his own earlier techniques and theories by the end of his last book), except that I now think Heimdall, here, embodies exactly what Mr. S'sky was referring to. He's just 100% dead-committed to "BE-ing", and it completely comes across. Drat. . . now I need to go back and re-examine all of the personal artistic choices I made in grad school. . . THANK YOU Marvel Entertainment (grumble)-- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2011 20:07:00 GMT -5
I always hold back my opinions. Okay. That was a lie. Oh Sweet Fancy Moses, YES it was!! Why, even now Mephisto is HEATIN' his cauldron for ya--! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2011 12:17:06 GMT -5
Just one thing about Heimdall being black... He's the guardian of the Rainbow Bridge and never leaves it. So no one on earth would ever see him in the first place. They'd have to guess at his looks based on the other Norse gods, wouldn't they? This EXACT POINT crossed my mind as well! I belieeeeeeeeeve we have achieved Reasonable Justification, ladies & gents! Two independent sources, on the job---- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 3, 2011 8:23:10 GMT -5
Pfft-- right. Sold. I'll take it. I'm in. I am ON BOARD! This is still faaaaaar more plausible and palatable (and supported by existing MU pseudo-pscience, more or less) than the extreme contortions of gullibility we had to endure to get back Ben Grimm, or Hawkeye, or Puppet Master after their demises. . . ! HB Which Ben Grimm revival are you referring to? I have to say I liked the Mark Waid one where they had to go to Heaven. It really fit the FF (they'll go ANYWHERE...) and he did the storyline right after Ben was killed so it wasn't dragged out and it was hardly the event they made of Johnny Storm's recent 'death' (cough cough...) Ha! Yep, that's exactly the one I was thinking of. I think it was referred to around here again recently, in fact--- with Jack Kirby being the "Creator" and all. But, nope, I didn't care for the idea of it at all-- although it certainly wasn't badly executed. And I did appreciate that they didn't turn it into a big Mega-Event, etc. But it really pushed the outer boundaries of acceptable continuity for me, and sets an absolutely ridiculous precedent for how far Reed's abilities can take him. Granted, I'd have to read it again, but-- what now prevents Reed from going and fetching Johnny? Or anyone, for that matter? Does Reed (or Ben) even remember that this event took place? And, honestly, it was simply too easy for Reed to track Ben's "soul" to the great hereafter via scientific methods. Some barriers are better off never crossed, because once they are. . . then what? AND YET, as I said, I still prefer it to having somebody kill Ben off on a whim, and being stuck with his loss. I do feel it would be better to take any deaths right off of the editorial table unless a solid, SOLID case can be made for it from a long-term character/storyline/MU perspective. (Like Egghead's, f'rinstance-- I believe he's still gone, yes? And we're well rid of him after the damage he did to Hank Pym and, earlier, to Hawkeye.). Welp, there's the ol' Morning Opinion-! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 2, 2011 19:38:52 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that it was established during George Perez's Giant Man miniseries that Josten as Goliath opened a two way hyper-spatial rift between earth and a Kosmosian Prison World. That Kosmosian Prison World is where mass is stored and drawn from by Pym particles. So that Prison World could be the place... Pfft-- right. Sold. I'll take it. I'm in. I am ON BOARD! This is still faaaaaar more plausible and palatable (and supported by existing MU pseudo-pscience, more or less) than the extreme contortions of gullibility we had to endure to get back Ben Grimm, or Hawkeye, or Puppet Master after their demises. . . ! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 1, 2011 6:55:30 GMT -5
[ Weaker cases? You mean like the fact that thanks to Doom's Time Machine, Cap himself saw the moment when Bucky was blown up and said there was no way he could've survived? ;D Or Puppet Master. . . who was "DEAD"-dead, y'know? Then his disembodied essence was transferred into some of his radioactive clay. . . then he was dead again. . . and then he was somehow returned to flesh by the Sphinx?? (Pulling some of this from Wikipedia) Or Wonder Man, even. Not that I don't buy into the ionic transformation explanation. . . but. . . wasn't he on at least a couple of earlier "from beyond the grave"-type teams of adversaries in the meantime? Or, heck, Jean Grey's resurrection so they could re-form the team as X-Factor. To me, it really was barely this side of, "It was only just a dream" or "It was all a mass hallucination". Or the Leader, who has died unpleasantly almost every 2nd time he appears-- to the point where the writers don't even bother trying to make plausible explanations anymore. . . But. . . I'm ultimately glad those characters are still around (well, except Jean's dead again, isn't she?), so the ol' disbelief keeps suspendin'. Wow, you're right. We have three dead size-changers in the wings. I had not realized that. And all three killed more or less in the same years-long spree (w/ Scott being lost right at the outset). And all of them truly pointless--- just a sensationalistic body-count. Really, your scenario works just fine for me. If recent events in the Hulk's domain hadn't put Jarella's planet Kai in the foreground, the three of them certainly could have ended up there. That would actually have been a plausible and credible nod to established continuity. Hmmmmmm. . . . I read Civil War #4 on Marvel's site last night. It was a bit of a revelation on several fronts. My biggest problem is that Reed had gone past the point of no return-- and I'm not aware of any lasting consequences at this point. He cloned/created a person (Thor-clone) to do his bidding, and the creature was flawed. The creature kills someone unnecessarily. Reed feels bad, and dispassionately kills the creature-- which is itself a sentient person, regardless of its origins and transgressions. Reed is the guy who saved Galactus once, right? He & Tony & Hank all seemed very upset about Bill Foster's death. . . and yet it didn't sway them or give them reasonable pause in the legitimacy of their mission? Well, maybe it did later. Obviously, I wasn't reading the daggone thing. Ugh. Old wounds, at this point. . . HB
|
|