State of the industry: DC Comics movies

Okay, so the subject for this post comes to mind after having seen Suicide Squad (short version, starts out good but then sort of peters out, better than Batman V Superman, by dint of being at least fun in a high-budget Sharknado sort of way, entertaining, but still not good.) It became clear to me after having seen it that the design and decision-making behind these films appear to be more-or-less consistent. in that they're going with the R-rated "not for kids, look how mature we are TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" version of these characters, which honestly just makes me roll my eyes more than anything else,

Now, I may mention Marvel Studios as a comparison point at various points in this post, that does not mean I see the two as competitors, frankly, they're not as that would imply competition, which, on an artistic level is simply not the case. Though there is one comparison I can make that accurately sums up my feelings towards both at present.

Marvel Studios have made a habit of taking properties that people are less familiar with and making them into megahits (this was originally made necessary by the fact that they had sold off the rights to Spider-Man, and the X-Men among others simply to avoid bankruptcy.) , it seems hard to imagine in 2016, but there was a time Iron Man wasn't really a big deal. they then repeat this process with Thor (a pretty "out there" concept at the time) Captain America (who was widely considered "too old fashioned" to work) and more recently, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and Ant-Man These efforts were often preceded by fans asking "how are they gonna make that work?" and every time, they delivered. (with varying degrees of consistency depending on how you feel about the Iron Man sequels.)

Warner Brothers and the DC comics movies, on the other hand, have, in my opinion, almost the mirror opposite scenario. Theirs is the habit of taking the most surefire megahits possible, and fucking them up without fail, the Wonder Woman trailer looks amazing, and the biggest question on my mind is, "how are they gonna fuck this one up?"

Now, I'm not one of the haters, I actually didn't mind Man of Steel. it wasn't perfect, but there was stuff in there that really worked, sure the colouring was drab as hell, and Supes himself seemed to be allergic to smiles, or any positive emotion really. But hey, I don't believe anyone who says they didn't think the city-fight at the end was entertaining. But that having been said, the film up until then was, as would become a habit, dull, grim and insufferably self-serious.

This sort of makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of an accountant who doesn't understand how entertainment works, The Dark Knight was a megahit that made enough money to sink a small island nation, so let's just try to ape the aesthetic and tone of that film to the exclusion of all else, (while completely ignoring everything that actually made the film great) Do not pretend that these people care if the film is good or not, they clearly don't or more of them would be. Warner Brothers are much more nakedly money-minded than Marvel Studios (and being more concerned with profits over artistry than a Disney subsidiary is certainly no small accomplishment.)

This might go a long way towards explaining the WB's decision to stick by Zack Snyder as a director for so long, Mr. Snyder is nothing if not a point of heavy debate among fans., His work, after all, is often some of the most polarising in the history of superhero movies, Examples of this include Watchmen which has fans divided over it's treatment of the source material, and more recently Man of Steel which sits at 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, now I know that's not an accurate measure of quality, (nothing is by the way since entertainment is subjective and therefore objectivity in appraisal is impossible) but it does paint a picture that Snyder's work is very much a consistent point of contention. I am of course, aware that Snyder himself did not direct Suicide Squad, but he did set the overall tone of the DCEU with a consistent feel in both Man of Steel and Batman v Superman a tone of which, in true Snyder fashion, people furiously debate the merits and faults without end.

The result of having such a divided audience, of course, is prolonged debate, with audiences split so often down the middle, people talk about these works for long periods of time, with the internet essentially being an entity from which nothing really goes away in the true sense, this affords such polarising work a more-or-less permanent place in the collective consciousness of the superhero film fandom. The debate is publicity, and no publicity is bad publicity, I mean unless you care about trivial things like the actual quality of a film and stuff like that. Batman v. Superman scored incredibly low with critics (and Suicide Squad even lower,) but both have many defenders, and both were huge box office successes. I know that the first movie to ever feature Batman and Superman together was always going to rake it in no matter how good or bad the actual film was, But the same cannot be said of Suicide Squad, or can it?

it's a commonly held opinion among DC fans, or sometimes just fans of comics or superhero media in general, that Batman has the best rogues gallery, but let's face it when people say Batman has the best villains, they're thinking of one character in particular, The Joker. Mr. J was notably featured in the trailers for Suicide Squad, he wasn't particularly prominent, but that didn't alter the fact that he was always the point of conversation. No matter how you feel about the casting of Jared Leto, The Joker will always inspire hype and passionate debate, the buzz around this film would've been insane even if the trailers didn't look good.Which in fairness they did, whatever else you think of Suicide Squad the marketing was top notch, so what happened?

The film itself is a curious thing, without wishing to spoil, it doesn't really hold up to logical scrutiny, the situation the team was assembled to resolve was given rise to by the team being assembled in the first place for one thing, it has a common problem with Batman v Superman in that the storytelling feels rushed, the obvious reason for this is that there were far too many characters to introduce and develop. Add to that the fact that many scenes (including an apparent majority of those to feature the Joker) were cut from the film to shorten the run-time, This makes for an incredibly rushed narrative that just feels incomplete, Plot threads appear and then disappear without conclusion, or some piece of development we never saw gets a payoff we were never set-up for, this, if talk is to be believed. is an unfortunate example of a studio interfering with a director's vision, historically, not a good sign.

Actually, I'm going to take the opportunity of talking about rushed narratives to raise one particular point here.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH BETTER THE ULTIMATE EDITION IS

I want to make this very clear, I am well aware that studio interference almost certainly will have played a part in these films not being all that they could, I am also well aware that as an example the "ultimate edition" of Batman v Superman is a much more complete, and better-paced story, but see, here's the thing; I don't care. If you gave me a week, I would struggle to explain everything that is wrong with this, so here are my biggest gripes with this way of thinking. firstly, a golden rule of entertainment I've internalised as a Performing Arts student is, if the audience doesn't see it, it didn't happen, incidentally you could apply this principal to a lot of the character beats in Suicide Squad, it's also the reason why the "Martha" moment in Batman v Superman will never, ever not be stupid no matter how many captioned pictures people make explaining it, even if their mental gymnastics are accurate, that reasoning wasn't demonstrated in the film and therefore, doesn't exist.in the narrative.

this is not even taking into an account that accepting the ultimate edition as the only "true" version of the story as many do, by definition makes the theatrical version an incomplete product. This means that an audience in a theatre paid full ticket prices for a product that was incomplete, Besides which, special editions of things are supposed to compliment the original release, not fix them. Is the original non-ultimate edition still available for purchase? If so then that is the true version, as this is the one the company threw all that marketing behind, if not, then people who went to cinemas were not only sold an incomplete product disguised as a full one but were misled about the quality of the final product.

If you didn't like the theatrical version, why would you buy the longer one? The eventual ultimate edition of Suicide Squad could be the best comic adaptation ever put to screen, but the theatrical version the world was sold and that the company continue to sell and make money from was rushed, choppy and poorly written, so Suicide Squad is just that, regardless of what the ultimate edition is like.

Right, with that little rant over. let's get onto the more artistic side of things, as I've dwelt on the business stuff for quite a while. See, my main problem with this version of the DC Universe, is that it clearly doesn't want me to be a part of the fandom, There is a very specific niche that this film appeals to, and to its credit, I can easily recall a time in my own life that I would have loved these films and this iteration of these characters. The thing is, that was also the time in my life I thought Shadow the Hedgehog was a good idea for a character.

The unrelentingly grim tone of these films and the complete lack of a willingness to god forbid either earn it or have any sense of irony about it, strikes me as a twelve-year-olds impression of maturity, "everything's dark and serious so it can't be for kids SEE? SUPERHEROES AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" is what I imagine any given tween saying to a dismissive person while watching these films. Trapped in a permanently adolescent sense of self-serious justification.

I was like this too as a tween/early teenager, I used to openly watch risque anime in front of people to prove it wasn't childish,("See? They swear and there's blood and nudity and everything!") even though in hindsight that attitude was pretty damn childish. I bring this up because it is here that I believe lies the problem at the core of Zack Snyder's DC Universe, As an entity this franchise is so preoccupied with being taken seriously that it forgets to be any fun, now this is not automatically a deal breaker, but you need to earn that kind of seriousness, if you want to be completely serious, then you have to convince the audience to take you equally seriously, and I just can't.

I believe that in order to get this right, you have to acknowledge that at their core, these characters and this universe was originally conceived for children, that is nothing to be ashamed of, I believe Zack Snyder when he says he's a comic book fan, but I don't believe he quite understands what that means. To be an adult comic book fan means to admit that you're that kid who never stopped wanting to believe in the hero ideal, or could never grow out of the catharsis of cartoonish villainy, Taking these characters and putting them into a dark, pseudo-realistic world and making everything unbearably grim and very decisively not for the kids they originally inspired has only ever really worked once. The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy is a different animal, dark and gritty worked for Batman because Batman was already dark and gritty. Also, at the core of it, Batman is, and always has been, fundamentally about law and the morality thereof, and the potential for good and bad in humans represented by his friends and enemies. These are complex themes but they can be made easily digestible for children if need be,

Now, I'm going to swing the other way here for a second, of course, you don't need to make it child-friendly to have these films be good, there are adult-oriented DC Comics and there can be adult-oriented movies too, but the thing there is, if you're going to mature up these characters, the story has to be sophisticated enough to warrant it, and it is now we come to the biggest hurdle in this endeavour.

The biggest problem with the DC Comics movies is that so far, they have been largely boring, and nowhere near clever enough to make up for it, I'm gonna come right out and say it, Zack Snyder's DC Universe is dumb. the presence of backlash over the destruction in Man of Steel was just the biggest clue in that film. But sure let's focus on that for a bit, why was that destruction there? The answer is obvious, it was there because it looked cool, and made for more dramatic stakes there was no other reason,

Now, I don't have a problem with a movie being dumb, but if it is, then the director shouldn't pretend it isn't. The entire DCEU just smacks of that one person at every party, you know the one, that is clearly one of the stupidest things in human existence, but thinks they can debate with you on an intellectual level because they read a few articles on Wikipedia, Zack Snyder's DC movies routinely pretend they have some, mature resonance, but then proceed to piss all over that very idea with their ham-fisted stupidity and clumsy metaphors when they're not trying to cram six films of material into two hours.

I drew comparisons earlier to the early teen trying his damnedest to look all mature and, for lack of a better term "deep" (actually can we stop using that word? I mean, unless it's describing a body of water, it sounds insufferably pretentious even if the adjective is warranted) but the key word there is "look". Early on in the post, I made mention of aping the tone and aesthetic of The Dark Knight while ignoring what actually made the film great. To elaborate on that, the appeal of The Dark Knight had much more to it than grit, darkness, and realism. first of all, a minor point to make, it was not the first film in the series, there was already a lot of groundwork in place for Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, Alfred and Commissioner Gordon, these characters and their relationships to one another were already established and their personalities and relationships realised.

Secondly, a more major point,as I've mentioned, Batman was the best choice, and really the only DC hero that this gritty realism actually compliments, give this treatment to anyone else and it seems like you're trying to apologize for the source material, if you don't believe that the source material is good, then the movie you make from it won't be. I'm not saying changes don't need to be made now and then, comics and film are vastly different media, of course, there will be some things that just don't translate well. However, your source material is what it is, if you're not comfortable with it, you shouldn't be adapting it, simple as that. I know that an unfaithful adaptation isn't always bad, on rare occasions it's even an improvement (has anyone actually read The Shining?) but at the very least the core concept has to remain intact, and at their core superhero comics as a narrative are often incredibly cheesy, this is not a thing you can really get around, so embrace it, who doesn't love cheese? I'm getting off-track but the point I'm trying to make is that for all its realism the Nolan Batman trilogy never forgot what it was, and it certainly wasn't too preoccupied with being taken seriously, it didn't need to be because...

Thirdly it was pretty well written, well The Dark Knight was anyway, so many resonated with this film for so many reasons that you can't just pin it on an aesthetic and tone as WB seem so fond of doing, The late Heath Ledger's iteration of The Joker was unlike any version before him, and honestly unlike any villain in cinema. Portraying not a gleeful sadistic clown ala Jack Nicholson, but a walking mass of evident psychological damage only out to laugh at the civilised world and its absurdities and prove that everyone's as bad as he is when the right buttons are pushed.  and yes, he definitely stole the show, he also deserved that Oscar (which makes it sad that the Academy would never have given it to him living)  but even he couldn't have carried this film himself, The film is incredibly quotable, with a good script and a great cast, and also the right amount of content for it's running-time.

My point is, you can't copy the success of a film by aping the look and feel of it.Another way the DCEU tried to piggyback off the success of the Nolan trilogy is with Jessie Eisenberg's version of Lex Luthor, who is essentially store-brand Ledger-Joker without the humour or any kind of reason for this characterization (except to try and re-capture the appeal held by the original template).

There are a few reasons Heath Ledger's Joker worked so well, and Jessie Eisenberg's Lex Luthor just falls flat, one of which is of course that Ledger's Joker has already happened and the appeal of whom will therefore never be replicated, and even if it could be, Eisenberg's Luthor is haphazardly written.
The version of The Joker played by Heath Ledger worked so well in part because it was The Joker, His anarchic philosophies and quirks were believable for a part of this nature, so, of course, shoving similar quirks and mannerisms into a CEO character was obviously never going to work, it doesn't come across as believable that a functioning member of society, much less a successful businessman, would act like that. Even if it could, Ledger's dialogue was well-written, witty and uniquely "Joker" whereas Eisenberg's dialogue is what Alex from Whatculture.com described as "what a twelve-year-old thinks philosophy is" which I agree with whole-heartedly as I find it a pretty apt description of the whole enterprise. The DCEU is stuck as an adolescent's idea of mature and devoid of any sense of irony that might have made it fun in a cathartic sort of way.

The bottom line of the problem is that Zack Snyder makes dumb movies, and then he tries to pass them off as smart ones, you can blame studio interference for rushed narratives all you want but this particular flaw is at the very core of the project. Writing this has made me a little sad because I really want these films to be good, I want to be able to enjoy these without qualifying it, but they're just not good.

Ah well, the Justice League trailer looks good, and the Wonder Woman trailer looks amazing, I guess we're just gonna have to hope for the best with the next few, but if not, hey, there's always Marvel.

Random fiction ramblings,

Hi everyone felt like an update, but didn’t really know what to write about, so I’m just gonna share some opinions about popular fiction that I don’t think I’d have enough to say for a full post on their own. (Though the post may grow in the writing, we’ll see.)

Okay so with that in mind

Star Wars: Rey is NOT a Mary Sue, stop saying that.

Okay so right out of the gate a seemingly unpopular opinion, I’ve encountered people on both sides of this argument, and I have to say branding Rey as a Mary Sue, especially within the Star Wars universe is a “dragon with four wings” complaint at best.

For those who may not know, in writing terminology, a Mary Sue is a character who is seemingly perfect, unrealistically skilled in more areas than is believable and therefore uninteresting at best, annoying at worst. A common complaint levelled at Star Wars: The Force Awakens is that the female lead Rey falls into this category.

She doesn’t, she is not a Mary Sue, she is competent, not the same thing. All of her skills are easily explained by her upbringing and circumstances, she’s handy with a staff? She grew up on a desert planet among thieves and scavengers, if she hadn’t learned to defend herself she wouldn’t have lived very long. She knows her way around spaceships? She’s a scavenger, the first thing we see her doing is stripping down a derelict spaceship for parts, and it’s soon established this is what she does to feed herself, she’d have to have been doing it most of her life, it stands to reason she’d know a thing or two about how spaceships work.

All of this pales into utter insignificance next to the fact that she is highly force-sensitive, it has been established throughout Star Wars that The Force has a will of its own, even if it can be manipulated, she is literally being guided by the cosmic energies of the universe, she has no idea how it works, so it manifests itself as luck, and she only thought to try the mind trick after she saw Kylo Ren try a similar technique on her, and learning quickly is a common trait of force-sensitives. If she was levitating objects and mind-tricking people by the time we first saw her maybe the Mary Sue argument would hold more weight.

Maybe the reason she’s more attuned to The Force than others, (besides her possible parentage) might be that she’s lived alone her whole life and wasn’t distracted by people. That’s another question entirely. But yeah, a competent female is not automatically a Mary Sue, and before you say it, she only beat Kylo Ren because he was critically injured before they fought.

Harry Potter: Severus Snape was NOT a good man and deserves no sympathy.

Okay maybe I’m shouting at a dog for barking here because let’s face it, almost every character in Harry Potter is some form of an irredeemable bastard, and the fact that it isn’t noted within the fiction does not excuse them. I could fill a post with just that. With that having been said, I really can’t understand why so many seem to love Snape so much, I’m not saying he’s not an interesting character, but he was not a hero, or even a good person and I doubt he’d have wanted to be called one. The man is a bitter old beta with a victim complex. Okay so most people know the story here, Snape, apparently evil turned out to be infiltrating Voldemort’s army on Dumbledore’s orders all along, the reason for this? He was in love with Lily Potter ever since they met as kids and could never let go of his feeling for her, and his motivation to protect her led to him betraying one of the most dangerous wizards who ever lived. (I can almost hear people going “aww”) except no, no Snape, that does not excuse you.

Throughout the entire series, Snape, who let’s not forget is a teacher, and as such has certain expectations of his conduct, has targeted and harassed Harry, a child, seemingly for no reason. We later find that the reason for his animosity towards him is because Harry bears a strong resemblance to (and allegedly inherited the arrogance of) his father, who Snape loathed, not just for winning the affections of the girl he loved, but also for bullying him.

Okay, so he was in love with a girl who didn’t return his affections, that’s a really shitty thing, I sympathise, we’ve all been there. Not only that, he had to watch as his bully and tormenter won over the woman he loved, consider the wound well salted, that has to sting something fierce. However, the way Snape reacts to these things voids any right to admiration or sympathy he may have had. It doesn’t come up in the films (presumably because it would make him less sympathetic) but Snape pushed Lily away long before she and James were together. Throwing the word “Mudblood” in her face no less, for no better reason that she was also a friend to James. For this reason, those who think “Harry might have been his son if not for James” are making a pretty gargantuan assumption.

This is largely because of the several years between incidents, there is no evidence to suggest that if James Potter had never entered the picture, Lily would have ever thought of Snape as anything more than a friend. Chances are she would’ve just ended up with somebody else for Snape to centre his bitterness on, maybe Lupin? Hell, it might even have been Sirius or someone completely new. I don’t believe for a second that Snape ever had a chance with Lily Evans, for the very simple reason that he is, to quote Shakespeare “a complete prick”.

Perhaps I should elaborate on that stance, not only did Snape never make any attempt to apologize to, or make any form of amends with Lily, preferring instead to lightly stalk her, (which is bad enough on its own) throughout the series, Snape has six years, and within them, innumerable chances to make up for his treatment of her through Harry, and he acts upon precisely zero of them. no, trying to counter the broom curse does not count, as a teacher, it was his duty to protect his students, he had to do that as a standard, in fact if anything, not reporting the incident to Dumbledore was a shocking dereliction of duty, nor does teaching Harry Occlumency, he did that only after express orders from Dumbledore, and then stopped the first time Harry did something he didn’t like.

Also here’s the big thing, he gave Lily and her family up to Voldemort, not caring a bit what happened to them, he only felt the motivation to betray Voldemort when he knew Lily  was in danger, that shows how much he cared about Lily’s happiness doesn’t it? He didn’t, as long as she was alive, and therefore, he had a chance with her, he didn’t care what happened to the people she loved most, he didn’t love her at all, he just wanted her, that’s not the same thing.

Every time Snape had the chance to do something commendable (of his own volition, not out of necessity) he instead chose to act through bitterness and take said bitterness out on the blameless child of the source of his frustrations, it takes a certain kind of person to do these things, so to the people who ask “WHY DIDN’T YOU LOVE HIM LILY!?”…well, probably because he was that kind of a person.

Game of Thrones: As much as I love Daenerys, she’s starting to scare me a bit.

Okay, this one is more conjecture for the future of a series than anything else, if you’re up-to-date on Game of Thrones you’ll know where things currently stand, if not, consider this your SPOILER WARNING!!

Right, (I think this is far enough down the page) Daenerys, the mother of Dragons, Breaker of Chains, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Queen of Mereen, the Sultan of Swing, and whatever other nicknames she accrues throughout the rest of the series, is easily what one could consider a fan favourite character, and for good reason. She’s a badass who don’t suffer no fools gladly, and she has that immunity to fire, that’s cool, also, it hasn’t come up in the show, but according to the books, she’s also immune to disease, she has never been sick in any way and likely never will.

Also she’s unfailingly compassionate to the downtrodden, because she’s been there, she was given, basically as a slave to the chief of a barbarian hoard so that her brother could eventually get an army, but she lucked out, and happened to be sold to a husband she grew to love, not only that, but she managed to win the admiration of his people early on. Even after he died when she should’ve been carted off to live out the rest of her days as the Dothraki equivalent of a Loose Women panellist, she instead climbed onto a burning pyre, discovered her immunity to fire and got 3 pet baby dragons out of the deal (this evaded Dothraki custom eventually caught up with her, but as she’s made a habit of doing, she turned the situation to her advantage and got a massive Dothraki army for it.)

In the meantime she managed to obtain a large army of born and disciplined soldiers, gain the support and love of millions for abolishing slavery in a civilisation rampant with it, and take a city for herself to get in some practice at being queen before she finally set sail for Westeros as was the plan from the beginning (and it only took her six seasons.) By all accounts, everything’s coming up Dany, that’s what many have been rooting for since season one, so why does the thought of it unnerve me so? For the answer to that I’ll quote Daario Naharis, he told Daenerys she “wasn’t meant to sit on a chair in a palace” calling her a conqueror, an assertion her track record does support, but there’s nothing wrong with that in itself.

Being a conqueror does not necessarily make one a bad ruler, Robert Baratheon claimed the throne by right of conquest and was a pretty lousy king, but then he was never interested in being a good one, the first book, A Game of Thrones elaborated a bit more on his character than the show did. Robert would’ve taken off and lived as a hunter in the wild years ago if he felt like he could, he confesses to Ned that the only reason he stuck around was because his absence would put Joffrey on the throne, which he knew even then, was a terrible idea.

Conversely, Daenerys is descended from Aegon Targaryen A.K.A Aegon the conqueror, the man who united the seven kingdoms of Westeros in the first place (albeit with the help of some dragons) established Westeros as one nation and also gave rise to the Targaryen dynasty which lasted for hundreds of years, Aegon must’ve been a pretty decent ruler. Daenerys is the daughter of the last king of that dynasty, Aerys Targaryen, in that regard, the iron throne is hers by birth-right, and she would have that claim even if she couldn’t take it by force (which, as things currently stand, she absolutely can and probably will.)  But her attitude this season has me a little worried for what comes after that.

Side note; Cersei’s not keeping that throne for long the whole establishment there was in shambles because of all the internal strife, even before she blew up almost the entire court of King’s Landing with the Sept of Balor, there were probably a few nobles there who’s men wouldn’t take too kindly to following her now, we already know about the Tyrells.

So, proceeding then, under the assumption that Daenerys will, at some point claim the iron throne, I can’t help but notice in season 6, how comfortable she was with burning people alive. I know it’s not a new thing, she did the same to claim the unsullied, free the slaves and defend her city, but she also burned every Khal in the Dothraki hoard with an honest-to-God smile on her face. I think she’s enjoying the power a little too much, the only reason this doesn’t seem egregious as of yet is because so far, her aims have always been altruistic, and her targets have generally had it coming. Upon her return to Mereen after escaping the Dothraki in this year’s season is the most damning example when Tyrion straight-up likens her plans to burn her enemies to her father. “You’re talking about destroying cities, it’s not entirely different,” he says. He manages to make her see reason, this time, but that doesn’t change the fact that her initial instinct demanded scorched earth.

Bran’s vision late in the series also concerns me a bit, Juxtaposing images of Daenerys sharply with those of her father screaming “Burn them all!!” Very little in Game of Thrones happens for no reason (except the setup of the Tysha subplot in season one and apparently the whole thing with Gendry being King Robert’s bastard of course) and George R.R. Martin is known for shocking events that break people’s hearts. Would it not just be the most heart-breaking thing ever, if the person everyone was so sure was the unequivocal heroine, turned into the biggest villain? Is that not exactly the kind of thing a sadist like ol’ George R.R. would do? Please stay good Dany, please, and also don’t feed Tyrion to your dragons.

Dragon Ball: Super Saiyan God is definitely more powerful than Super Saiyan 4, here’s why:

Okay, for the first time on this blog I’m indulging perhaps my biggest and most consistent long-standing obsession, I like Dragon Ball, I love it in fact, even the bad stuff (except Evolution, that doesn’t count, Dragonball: Evolution sucks dicks) I don’t even hate GT (though I must admit it’s pretty bad) however, with that having been said, I’m glad it’s no longer canon, because I’m really enjoying the new series Dragon Ball Super.

It begins two years after the events of the Majin Buu crisis in Dragon Ball Z. it first retells the story of two feature films that were released over the last few years, the first of which, Battle of Gods, introduced a new power-up for our protagonist Goku, Super Saiyan God, bit of a mouthful I know, now it’s been a subject of much fan debate whether this new form is stronger than the now defunct Super Saiyan 4, which it has arguably replaced, to properly examine this, I’ll explain how these power-ups and a few other things work for the uninitiated, if you’re confident you know your Dragon Ball lore, skip the next few paragraphs.

In Dragon Ball our protagonist, Son Goku, is one of the last surviving members of an alien race called the Saiyans, (or Saiya-Jin if you prefer the Japanese version, personally I prefer the dub.) The defining trait of this race is that their lives essentially revolve around combat, they love nothing more than a good fight, Goku himself becoming childishly excited at the prospect of a fun challenge. Pretty much everyone of note in Dragon Ball is a martial artist who can channel and manipulate the energy within their bodies (here referred to as “ki”) using it for various tasks, the most common active uses for ki are flight, and projecting attacks in the form of energy blasts, think lasers, but bigger. The passive uses for ki mostly boil down to increasing physical strength and speed, but there’s also some nonspecific telepathic ability with it that’s never fully explained, but allows characters to communicate long-distance.

I’m oversimplifying a bit, but I feel like I’m already frontloading so I’ll get right to the point, Specific to the Saiyan race is the ability to increase one’s power exponentially using a series of transformations, taking the form of a Super Saiyan, (it’s here you can tell the executives just wouldn’t let Akira Toriyama end the series when he wanted to) Originally an ancient Saiyan prophecy thought to simply be a myth, which Goku fulfils during his fight with Frieza (basically space Hitler) upon witnessing the death of his best friend. It is later revealed that the transformation is accessible to any Saiyan who has sufficient strength and a great enough need of it, manifesting after a surge of emotion (the Saiyan race was raised to be ruthless killing machines, and therefore never had the emotional capacity to transform.)

Throughout the series multiple higher levels of this transformation are discovered, to keep track they simply number them off, until Battle of Gods wherein a new Super Saiyan God form is discovered, (there were previously 3.)

Now, the way Super Saiyan transformations work, let’s include the now defunct Super Saiyan 4 for the sake of argument, is to essentially multiply all aspects of the power of the user by a set amount, a common argument for 4 being the strongest is that when Goku obtained it, his base form was as strong as Super Saiyan 3 would have been at the time of Battle of Gods.

That is quite an assumption, and there is little evidence to support it, but even if true, it’s not really relevant, because in order to judge which is stronger, the only way is to ascertain which is the more potent power-up, as the function of a Super Saiyan transformation is to multiply the users current power, what that happens to be at the time is not really relevant.

Okay, so now we get onto the actual working out of it, now would be the place to skip to if you didn’t want the exposition. According to the Daizenshuu (official Dragon Ball encyclopedia) here are the effects of each level of Super Saiyan

Super Saiyan = base power x 50 (5,000% power increase)

Super Saiyan 2: is double that so base power x 100 (10,000% power increase)

Super Saiyan 3 quadruples that, so base power x 400 (40,000% increase)

Super Saiyan 4 has 10 times the power of 3. So, base power x 4,000 (400,000% increase)

By now you should see why any non-Saiyan on the show was soon left in the dust in terms of usefulness, the God form as yet has not been quantified, so in order to work it out, we’re going to have to do some power scaling in relation to other characters. (I’m going to assume you know who these characters are, but it’s really the figures that are important) this is going to assume quite a bit, but I think the gap will be large enough for that to not matter.

At Super Saiyan 2, Vegeta fought Majin Buu, and lost, by Goku’s admission the two of them were equal in that form, therefore I think we can assume that he would have fared no better, later on in the series, Gotenks, in his base form takes on the same opponent, and fares about as well, from that we can assume that Gotenks in base form is equivalent to Goku at Super Saiyan 2.

Later in the series, Buu gets a power-up of his own, essentially doubling his power, (more on why that’s important in a bit) Goten and Trunks train in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber, Trunks at one point says “We weren’t half as strong as we are now when we came in here” that hints at more than a double, but to keep it simple let’s assume their power has doubled. Goku is dead and in Otherworld at this point, so his power won’t have increased any,

Assuming that Goten and Trunks have doubled their power, that would follow that when they fuse into Gotenks, his power will have also doubled, putting him, given our earlier estimate, at 200 Gokus, or half of Super Saiyan 3 Goku, Gotenks later transforms into a Super Saiyan, increasing his power fifty-fold, putting him at precisely 10,000 Gokus which is already 2.5 Super Saiyan 4s, later on, Gotenks skips level 2 altogether, and jumps right to Super Saiyan 3, which, given the above figures, is an eight-fold increase, putting him at 80,000 Gokus, or 20 Super Saiyan 4 Gokus, At this level, it is said by both Piccolo and Goten, that Gotenks and Super Buu, are about equal, this becomes important soon, now, in comes Ultimate Gohan. He absolutely owns Super Buu in a humiliating fashion, but then Buu absorbs Gotenks and Piccolo and gains their power, and with it, the upper hand, this is where it becomes important that Gotenks and Buu were equal.

Given that Buu couldn’t touch Gohan before absorbing Gotenks it stands to reason there was a sizeable gap between their power, but Gohan, even being generous, could not possibly have had more than double Super Buu’s power if Buu was able to gain the upper hand by absorbing an equal being, and Piccolo, who, while no slouch, barely registers next to them in raw power. Also given how quickly Gohan began losing the fight, I’d say Buu had gained a considerable advantage, so I’d put Ultimate Gohan’s power at somewhere in the area of 60% over Super Buu pre-absorption, giving Gohan an approximate value of 128,000 Gokus, or 32 Super Saiyan 4 Gokus. (Buu’s Goku rating is not important)

Right and that’s about all the working out I can do, we still have no concrete data on how strong Super Saiyan God is, except that it forced Beerus, the god of destruction, to use 70% of his power, this is an opponent that floored Ultimate Gohan and his 32 Super Saiyan 4s worth of power, in a single kick, (it’s never established whether his power had depreciated in the time gap, but even if it did, it couldn’t have gone down enough to make too much of a difference) yet, Goku, with the Super Saiyan God form, was able to fight him almost as an equal, therefore, the God form is doubtlessly a more potent power-up as a single kick from Beerus had to channel at the very least, 180,000 base Gokus of force in order to take out Gohan, therefore the God power-up must have increased his power by a substantial amount more than 180,000 times base value, so, at the absolute minimum, I’d estimate the God form as being worth base form x 200,000 and that’s seriously lowballing it. If you look back at the figures Super Saiyan 4 is base form x 4,000, that’s quite a gap, putting God form at (at the very least) 50 times more potent than the now defunct Super Saiyan 4 and there you have it, I just answered a question absolutely no one I knew asked, but someone somewhere did.

The whole 'Me Before You' thing

Okay, given that I am physically disabled, I’ve been asked about this by a few people, and given that I have a lot of disabled people on my Facebook it’s been a difficult thing for me to get away from. (On a side note I don’t enjoy writing about disability, be it mine or just in general, I don’t find it difficult to talk about or anything, it’s just that the many disabled people I know (went to a special needs school so there are a fair few) seem to constantly complain about only being identified as disabled people, but then talk about nothing else, and I kind of think, if you want to be recognised for other things, then you should show people something else, rather than just complain, I’ll answer questions if they’re asked but it’s not something I like to focus on.)

For those reading who may not know, Me Before You is a drama film based on a novel of the same name, that as far as I can gather is about a disabled guy that falls in love with his caregiver and eventually kills himself rather than live like that and burden her with his care, so it’s basically like Million Dollar Baby but without all the Clint Eastwood and boxing.

For the people who basically want to know my opinion, I don’t really have one, I haven’t seen the film, and I don’t think I will. It just doesn’t seem like the kind of thing I’d enjoy, and after having read some reviews it doesn’t sound like a particularly good version of that kind of thing for those that do, even independent of the controversy (such as it is).

Okay so let’s start with why people are upset, I just gave a brief summary and probably huge oversimplification of the plot, after a bit of research there isn’t that much more to it apart from the minor details that the guy was not born disabled and acquired a spinal injury and with it quadriplegia, and that he’s also rich because if he wasn’t finding him attractive would just be weird wouldn’t it?

Essentially the reason people are upset is because the film allegedly romanticises suicide for the disabled, or at least normalises it, enforcing the idea that a life with a disability is not worth living and that disability and dignity are mutually exclusive, which is far from a new thing in cinema (all while using the hilariously hypocritical tagline “live boldly”, a reference to the character’s last words to his caregiver via a letter) which is mixed messages to say the least (interestingly, apparently in the book he simply asked her to “live well” which is slightly less contradictory, and makes me wonder why they went with the change,) I’ve heard a lot of people call this a “disability snuff film.”

To be absolutely honest my biggest criticism of that premise is not that I find it offensive, I just find it lazy, a cheap shot at trying to get a sad ending in there to make the film more affecting than it has earned the right to be (remembering of course that all of this is conjecture, I’ve not seen the film and probably won’t.) and it hints at a lack of research, I can’t speak to the experience either, as I don’t have quadriplegia, though people seem to think that since I use a wheelchair that’s close enough, It really isn’t.

Again, I don’t have quadriplegia, so I don’t feel in the right to complain about any portrayal of it, I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t consider suicide because I don’t know what it’s like, for someone with Cerebral Palsy I’m actually quite low on the scale of actually being handicapped by it, I use a wheelchair outside, but I could easily get about on my knees without one if it were socially acceptable to do so outside of my house, I was also born with it, so I can’t speak to the shock of suddenly acquiring a disability as I’ve never known anything else. That said, the suicide thing does strike me as a lazy stock ending, this film in my eyes is guiltier of failing to raise my interest than offending me.

The thing that annoys me most about the whole situation surrounding this film, is the bombardment of assumptions that I, along with any other even slightly disabled people, regardless of severity, circumstance or context, must give a shit, I really don’t. As far as I’m concerned this whole debacle has only served to allow an average-to-mediocre film (if the critics consensus on Rotten Tomatoes is to be believed) more attention than it deserved to have, which only helps the film, and if anything will probably encourage more like it because controversy is very profitable.

I’m not going to say I can’t see why a lot of disabled people are a bit upset over this film, I’m not even going to say they’re wrong to feel that way, it’s not my place to decide that. If you really want to get into the politics of it I’d say the bigger problem (of which both sides of the argument are guilty) is the grouping together of disabled people as one entity. It’s not a community, I don’t know Stephen Hawking and I resent the assumption that I automatically give a shit about other disabled people, because unless I know them, I probably don’t. (I have this argument with my mother every time she scolds me for not watching the Paralympics because I’m “supposed to be inspired.”)

In summary, in regard to the film, I don’t think it was meant to offend, I’m a big fan of Hanlon’s razor as a principle with these things, never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by carelessness or stupidity. Also, unless you yourself have quadriplegia, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to get offended by the notion of someone with it choosing to end their own life. I don’t know what it’s like, and neither do you, having said that, it does feel like taking the easy way out to end the film that way.

So my conjecture is, the worst thing Me Before You appears guilty of, is getting a lot of attention without necessarily being a compelling enough film to warrant it. I’m more annoyed with the people who assume I’d be offended than I am with the film itself.

Ranking the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Hello all, it’s been a while since I updated this blog, frankly the amount of typing I had to do for uni work was getting me down to the point I didn’t even want to write anything recreationally, but with that all over with, I figured a new blog post was in order. I’ve been going to the cinema a lot lately (it’s one of my favourite things to do, which makes it great that I live so close) and obviously a recent movie to hit theatres has been Captain America: Civil War. Due to having different friends wanting to see it at different times, I’ve seen this one four times so far, and may yet see it again, (this hasn’t happened since Thor: The Dark World) but yeah it’s great, but how does it compare to the rest?

I imagine anyone who sees this with any interest will probably have seen others rank the MCU movies in order of preference, but I like to think (possibly wishfully) that my opinion is unique enough to warrant me doing the same thing here, I’ll be ranking all thirteen of them from worst to best in my personal opinion and explaining as best I can why they fall where they do, (I will also preface this by saying I like all of them, just to deter anyone calling me a hater of this or that.) So without further padding for length, let’s begin. (I’ll try to keep spoilers to a minimum) I’ll also mention that the top eight or so were absolute agony to choose the order.

Number 13: The Incredible Hulk

What can I say about this one? The Hulk as a concept was just never one of my favourites, I appreciate the whole Jekyll and Hyde thing he’s got going on, the struggle to maintain control is done very well here, and this film is a very good depiction of The Hulk as far as I can see, but I just never really got into him as a solo act. What it does, this film does well, but what it does doesn’t interest me all that much. I know the decision to re-cast Edward Norton down the line was made out of necessity and not for artistic reasons, but let’s be honest Norton was pretty generic here as far as protagonists go, he wasn’t bad, but I struggle to remember a single line of dialogue from him here or even most of the plot of the movie even after seeing it multiple times in the past, and that’s never a good sign. This is essentially a monster movie on steroids and it does a perfectly serviceable job of that, Tim Roth is a fun, if a little nonsensical villain, but I think there’s a good reason Hulk hasn’t had a 2^nd solo outing to date.

Number 12: Iron Man 2:

I think most who see this knew that this would be here, Iron Man 2 just doesn’t click the way others do, Jon Favreau is a fantastic director and Robert Downey Jr. is…Robert Downey Jr. enough said, but as services to the overarching narrative go, this is about as close to jogging-in-place as any of these films get. I think Marvel tried to cash-in on the recent career “revival” of Mickey Rourke with all the good press The Wrestler got at the time, but he’s really not that interesting in this. By the end I didn’t even remember what his motivation was, I think he wanted to kill Iron Man because something to do with his dad dying? And Justin Hammer (I forget the actor name) just wants to one-up Tony Stark, who is dying anyway, and because of this saw fit to leave his company to Gwyneth Paltrow, I mean…why? I’m pretty sure that’s it. Don Cheadle turns in a good performance as War Machine and this film gets it’s due for introducing Scarlett Johanson’s Black Widow, but as a standalone, it just doesn’t have much more going for it, I like it, but it’s not great.

Number 11: Iron Man

When writing this list out for the first time, I was as surprised as I imagine you are that I put Iron Man so low, this is the one that started everything, and I love it for that, but as a film, it suffers a bit from being a superhero movie before it was cool. Marvel Studios hadn’t found its groove yet and as a result, what we have here is a basically okay film with some great moments here or there. Nick Fury’s first Avengers teaser didn’t hold much meaning for me at the time, as I wasn’t versed in comic books back then and didn’t know what it meant, but with the benefit of hindsight, I can see the significance. (Especially since I have at various points binge-watched the whole lot with friends.)

The first appearance of the Iron Man suit is instantly iconic, the soundtrack is great (Iron Man’s first flight remains one of the scenes that come to mind to this day when I think of the MCU) and Robert Downey Jr. as we’ve established is, of course, Robert Downey Jr. and therefore fantastic. On the flipside, the villain is almost completely forgettable, (albeit with one memorable line (box of scraps) which is more than Whiplash ever got) the story is all over the map, much like Iron Man himself, who doesn’t seem to have much of a character arc beyond realising “building weapons is bad m’kay?” and of all the people to cast as Pepper Potts they chose Gwyneth Paltrow, I mean… why?

Number 10: Thor: The Dark World

I really wanted to put this one higher on the list, but in the name of being as fair as possible, I just can’t. I love this one, I’m the easiest lay in the world for stuff like this, I love a good high-fantasy setting and Asgard just looks amazing, and the accompanying score is perfect. Anthony Hopkins is a great Odin, Loki is as fun as ever, and it’s got Roy from The IT Crowd in it! This isn’t all the film has going for it either, but narratively, for the most part, this film has some problems I can’t ignore and just feels a bit rushed on the whole, like it’s more about aesthetics than pacing as we’re taken from one lavish set-piece to the next interspersed with the odd scene in London.

This is another one suffering from ‘Forgettable Villain’ syndrome. Christopher Eccleston does what he can, but he’s not in the film all that much, and as well as following him as the villain in Thor he also has to compete with Loki for attention in this one, which is not a challenge any villain would be wise to accept. Loki steals the show to the point that the actual villain of the piece seems all but inconsequential. Also, I was never a fan of the Thor/Jane Foster relationship, it felt forced in the first one, and it’s not much better here, as a device to motivate Thor it does the job I suppose but I kind of think they could’ve just been friends and not much would need to change. A perfectly adequate and entertaining film, but nothing game-changing.

Number 9: Avengers: Age of Ultron

I really hope it doesn’t speak ill of any of these films that thus far they’re so low on the list, I enjoyed this one a lot, but that said, taken as a film I think this is where it belongs. Joss Whedon in all fairness had a lot to do here, this one film had to be its own self-contained story, while also introducing two new characters in Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, setting up for Infinity War, while also setting up for Civil War while also setting up for Thor: Ragnarok, and introducing elements for Black Panther somewhere down the line.

Add to that the responsibility to have some semblance of established character development here as well, and that’s a lot on your plate. I must, therefore, ask the question of why he thought a completely out-of-the-blue romance subplot between Bruce Banner and Black Widow was a good idea. I suppose without it Bruce himself would be a bit of a non-entity. Mark Ruffalo is great (so much better than Edward Norton) and it would be a complete waste for him to simply serve as an angry plot-device like in Avengers.

Having said that, even in that his chemistry and buddy-dynamic with Tony Stark is a stroke of genius, the same would be true here, but with everything else going on, interpersonal chemistry is a rare thing when it has to struggle with such a convoluted plot. That said, in spite of the seemingly sequel-minded narrative, James Spader is morbidly hilarious as Ultron, Jarvis becoming The Vision was handled well in my opinion. Jeremy Renner is great as the down-to-earth one of the group in Hawkeye, which is a definite improvement over spending most of the film brainwashed. Quicksilver is fun for the moments he has, but Scarlett Witch is the most interesting one of the two. Overall it’s a fun way to kill a few hours, but if you’re not up on the continuity so far you may not want to start here.

Number 8: Ant-Man

I really liked Ant-Man, in spite of the famously troubled development of the film, Marvel put together something really solid here, the screenplay retains just enough of former director Edgar Wright to be distinctive, (there are some very Wright-esque scenes such as the exposition flashbacks.) It’s clever, it’s funny, Paul Rudd is instantly believable as the good-intentioned but supremely unlucky and out of his depth protagonist, bringing with him a hilarious supporting-cast of loveable crooks. The decision to retroactively introduce Hank Pym as a previous Ant-Man makes for a much more efficient means of Scott mastering his powers since he can actually be taught rather than figure it out on the fly like we’ve seen so many times. Anthony Mackie gets in a fun cameo, Michael Douglas is great in the role of Hank Pym and his chemistry with Evangeline Lily as Hope is undeniable. While not particularly striking, Corey Stoll makes an unsettlingly callous and unstable Yellowjacket. The action in this one is brilliantly inventive utilizing the Ant-Man’s unique skillset to sometimes hilarious effect. In short, it’s a fun ride, and every bit the comedic undertone of the universe that Iron Man is.

Number 7: Iron Man 3

Speaking of, it really was agony deciding where to put this in relation to the two around it, and yes, Iron Man 3 is my favourite one, (come at me I’ll fight you!) technically positioning itself as a Christmas movie (being set at Christmas, and released in Summer so the DVD would be out at Christmas) this is my go-to suggestion for making those post-Christmas meal family gatherings interesting. It also doesn’t hurt that it’s functionally the best of the three, simultaneously taking a grand scale national crisis plotline and a small-scale personal growth subplot for the man himself, I was never bored at any point watching this one. As usual Robert Downey Jr. is Robert Downey Jr. and hence, brilliant, but I think in hindsight that hasn’t ended up being a point in the favour of the Iron Man series. RDJ’s Tony Stark is so good that he can’t help but steal the show and sort of highlights how unremarkable most of the rest of the cast are, at least in the last two. Don Cheadle is always a reliable second-fiddle and one of the few consistently good things about the supporting cast along with Jon Favreau’s Happy Hogan, who’s always good for comic relief (even though he’s not in this one much.) Now, I can’t really talk about Iron Man 3 without addressing a certain elephant in the room, namely The Mandarin, and the twist surrounding that character. I actually really like that twist, yeah I know it’s not faithful to the comics and basically reduces The Mandarin to a one-note joke, but The Mandarin in his comic book form was, to put it tactfully, RACIST AS FUCK!

A faithful adaptation of The Mandarin would mean creating a caricature that even Mr. Popo would call racially insensitive (look it up if you need to) and such a character would never have made it into a major motion picture, and nor should it. (Besides, Trevor Slattery is hilarious) and I see this as simply acknowledging that we live in the 21^st century, so if you’re butt-hurt about The Mandarin not being a straight-faced racist caricature, you really need to accept that it was never going to happen and get over it. (Yes I am aware of the All Hail the King short that more or less established the existence of an actual Mandarin, but I highly doubt it will ever lead to anything, in fact, I hope it doesn’t)

With that said, if you are going to take away a villain with presence, (and Ben Kingsley gave his Mandarin a lot of that) then you should at least replace it with something, Guy Peirce is fine, and gives a good turn of the villain motivation, “My hero was a dick to me years ago, and now I’m going to destroy him” as good a motivation as any and makes particular sense in relation to Iron Man given the character’s famed arrogance, but again, Killian just comes off as another “villain of the week” which is getting harder and harder to combat the more movies there end up being, also towards the end Tony is saved by Gwyneth Paltrow, I mean…why?

Number 6: Thor

This is a film that is completely unashamed to be what it is, and I love that.  As I mentioned above I’m a very easy lay for a high-fantasy setting, and I love the aesthetic of the Thor films particularly in Asgard, the accompanying soundtrack also being among the better outings on this list. the stuff down on earth is good too, Coulson and S.H.I.E.L.D basically do the job as petty antagonists just getting in the way before Loki sets the destroyer loose, and speaking of, I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk about Loki’s character arc, which, was, Devastating! The most sympathetic villain in the MCU thus far and the only villain that steals every scene he’s in, and that performance here is likely what landed him the role of the big bad in The Avengers. Unfortunately the earth-located parts of the storyline can be a bit hit-and-miss, there are some brilliantly funny moments, and the supporting cast is generally great, but as I said before I found the Thor/Jane Foster relationship kind of forced, again, they could just be friends and the result would be basically the same. A little bit of information here, in Norse Mythology Thor, is married to Sif, who is present in this movie, frankly, if you must shoehorn a romance angle into the movie, why not that? They even referenced it in the sequel. Regardless of that, it’s a nice story with a great cast, plenty of laughs and a genuinely iconic villain.

Number 5: Captain America: The First Avenger

Okay Top 5, and this is the one I expect will surprise a lot of you, there’s just something about this one, it’s old-fashioned, and unashamedly just the right amount of cheesy, I mean old-fashioned in the sense that it put me in mind of the sort of Indiana Jones-esque adventure movie you just don’t see these days, complete with a sense of humour and a healthy level of unabashed sincerity that all come together to form something that is unlike anything else in the MCU. Captain America doesn’t suffer from the overshadowing problems of the Iron Man movies, in fact, if anything it works as an ensemble feature, Cap himself is the obvious lead and Chris Evans plays the slightly dorky but endearingly well-meaning protagonist to a tee. Steve Rogers is simply a nice guy, to have him say with a straight face “I don’t wanna kill anyone, I don’t like bullies,” which in movie terms is a very 80s sentiment, takes a very special kind of confidence.

I mentioned earlier that this movie could be seen as an ensemble piece, this is because unlike Iron Man, Captain America never threatens to overshadow his own movie, this is not to say he’s unremarkable, far from it, Chris Evans does a great job as the genuinely nice guy that is Steve Rogers and the supporting cast get their chance to endear themselves to the audience, in particular, Hayley Atwell’s Agent Carter, who as we know by now, got her own series. Tommy Lee Jones is also very amusing as the General, who, instead of using the old and tired cliché of the hardened army badass, (although he is very much that) also give him a dry and sarcastic sense of humour that contrasts incredibly with Steve’s straight-faced sincerity. Now, onto the other side of this film’s conflict. Something else that puts this film above so many others is its villain, Hugo Weaving’s Red Skull I imagine would be quite a polarising figure, but I think it’s great. His backstory is essentially being too extreme for the Nazis, which is impressive in itself. This is pure comic book cheesiness at its most unabashed, and I couldn’t love it enough for that.

Number 4: Guardians of the Galaxy

Come on, you knew this was going be top 5, as deliberate a B-movie as it gets, this one could be considered the film that encapsulates its own ideals more completely than anything else on this list. What are those ideals? Basically “We’re in space, we’re licensed to use a ton of 80s music, let’s just have a good time.” Largely separate from the rest of the expansive continuity Guardians of the Galaxy is free to just be it’s own thing, Peter ‘Starlord’ Quill, played here brilliantly by Chris Pratt was abducted from earth 30 years ago, nothing that’s been going on there gets his attention. Somehow he still has a Sony Walkman circa 1980 in working order, which, as a device to justify a delightfully 80s soundtrack, does a fantastic job, the tone of this film is very jokey and light-hearted, which suits the characters here right down to the ground, Vin Diesel himself I found a bit wooden (sorry, I had to) in all seriousness, for the one line he has to repeat, he does well. The personality of Groot shines through beautifully, and the credit for that really does have to go to the animation department. Speaking of whom, they also do a stellar job bringing to life Rocket Raccoon, voiced here excellently by Bradley Cooper (though leading up to release I heard rumours H. Jon Benjamin was in the running for the part, and cannot help but wonder what could have been, Cooper was great though so can’t complain.)

Drax the Destroyer is instantly Dave Bautista’s best acting role, (not that that’s saying much) the former wrestler is an instantly believable presence as the musclebound alien with no concept of metaphor, (a catalyst for some hilarious dialogue) and Zoe Saldana might just be the queen of sci-fi right now, her character Gamora could so easily have been just another bog-standard Hollywood ice-cold tough-gal you’ve seen a thousand times, but Saldana plays her part to a tee, and acts out a great script and character arc so well, that she makes the archetype her own in spectacular fashion. Chris Pratt is Chris Pratt, his personality here will not surprise you, he’s endearingly immature, and obsessed with music, using Footloose as an example to convince Gamora of the joys of dancing, citing Kevin Bacon as “A great hero.” I may be simplifying his character a bit, his obsession with 80s music comes from a cassette Walkman he carries around, which is the only thing he has left of his life on Earth (or Terra as they call it in the film.) despite this, for whatever reason, he’s never gone back even though he must’ve had the opportunity at some point, but maybe the fact that his last Earth memory is losing his mother can explain his reluctance.

Establishing four main characters, as well as an antagonist, and their subordinates (particularly when there are as many as there are here) in a two and a half hour runtime is no easy task, but Guardians manages it admirably, I like Ronan the Accuser, he’s appropriately villainous and a believable threat for the most part, but somewhat one-dimensional and still not on the level of Loki, who we now must acknowledge as the yard-stick against which all villains shall be judged. Even so, the film jumps about between characters just enough that it doesn’t really matter without it feeling too forced. The real question is not whether they can beat the big bad, but whether these four different, yet equally difficult individuals can be made to coexist (outside of Groot and Rocket who already do.)

From a world-building perspective, this film is a curious one, it’s almost completely separate from the rest of the continuity, and as such you could quite happily watch this one without having seen any of the others and not feel lost at all. Having said that the Easter Eggs here are all over the place so it rewards franchise knowledge without punishing any lack thereof. It also makes a good first step in establishing the much less grounded and more “out-there” parts of the Marvel universe, creating a precedent for a much more whimsical take on the series in a way that hasn’t really been done before.

I’ve not even mentioned some of the supporting cast but if I don’t wrap this up now I could go on forever, bottom line; Guardians of the Galaxy is probably the most fun you’ll have with any film in the MCU, it doesn’t take itself seriously, yet is confident enough to be straight-faced when it has to, and I would recommend it to the seasoned and uninitiated alike, along with anyone else for that matter.

Number 3: Captain America: Civil War

Good God it was difficult to decide where this went. As mentioned, I’ve seen this four times at time of writing, and it is glorious. Arguably a better follow-up to The Avengers than Age of Ultron was, this film deals with the long-term effects of a team of super-powered individuals running around unchecked by any system of authority, I don’t think it’s a spoiler at this point to say that this is the main cause of conflict within the team. Essentially, the governments of the world are no longer willing to tolerate the (to be fair, massive) collateral damage that The Avengers tend to leave behind in their battles. Based on the 2005 event comic Civil War this sees Captain America and Iron Man, who have had frequent little arguments over ideological differences, finally butt heads over those differences. Essentially those differences boil down to the question “Should the Avengers operate as a government outfit?” Iron Man seems all in favour along with a good deal of the rest of the team, Cap on the other hand is completely opposed. The idea of putting the power of the Avengers in the hands of “people with agendas” doesn’t sit well with him, for fear that their handlers may stop them from doing the right thing, or force them to do something they shouldn’t. Stark on the other hand, weighed down by the guilt of everything, feels that the Avengers are too dangerous to run around unchecked and need to be answerable to someone, saying “we need to be put in check, whatever form that takes, I’m game.”  I find myself ideologically on “team Cap” if you’re wondering, and that has nothing to do with the fact that Iron Man’s movies came lower on this list, or with the fact that, in Iron Man 2 Tony was singing completely the opposite tune about this exact same issue, because believe it or not I don’t see that as hypocritical as some do. A lot’s gone down since Iron Man 2. At that point Stark himself was arguably the only known Avenger, and he had no concept of things like the Chitauri or Asgardians or anything like that, I’d actually be worried if his perspective hadn’t changed. Even so, as I said, I find myself on Team Cap, even while acknowledging both have merits and problems. As I said before Tony and Steve have been butting heads on and off since Avengers (excellent slow-build by the way) over their different approaches. Seeing that come to a head here not only feels natural, but it feels like it was planned pretty far in advance, of course we knew the title of this one was going to be Civil War before Age of Ultron was released, so it probably was to an extent. The other interpersonal relationships here are done very well, with a surprising level of chemistry between Vision and Scarlett Witch, some fun banter between Bucky and Falcon, and Ant-Man fanboying over Captain America is fun. The Black Panther also gets a complete character arc even among so many other characters, to the point that I actually wonder what the first Black Panther movie will be about, since the things I’d expect to happen in that one more or less happen in the background here. Of course I can’t talk about Civil War without mentioning Spider-Man, Tom Holland was great, he didn’t overstay his welcome and established himself as a powerful presence, if a little underdeveloped but that was kind of the point. We weren’t forced to endure his origin story again, which was refreshing, for once a movie studio trusts that we know what happened to a character that was rebooted twice in the last decade or so. This has left me enthused for Spider-Man: Homecoming, which I can only assume was the goal here. I’ve seen a lot of people comparing this to Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice due to their superficially similar premises, but there really is no similarity, (people who have read earlier posts will already know what I think of Batman v. Superman, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that.) but on that note the only comparison I’m going to make is to quote Brentalfloss on his Facebook page, (may 9^th) as his opinion mirrors mine here, he writes “In 2 hours 33 minutes, Batman v. Superman couldn’t convincingly explain why two guys were fighting, Civil War nailed the explanation and execution of twelve people fighting and did it all with six fewer minutes of running time.”

I agree here completely, but it really isn’t fair to compare the two as Civil War sits on a dozen films worth of build-up, and uses it excellently, and more importantly, doesn’t try to mesh several stories together in a haphazard mess masquerading as world-building, therefore I’ll make no further comparisons.

Civil War rests comfortably on the bedrock of continuity the MCU has built up over the years and is very confident with it, the conclusion doesn’t feel very…well…conclusive, but then we always knew there were going to be follow-ups to this story, so that’s not really a problem. The film carries a bit of a mixed-bag ending, for me at least. Parts of this film were difficult to watch (and I’m not just talking about those friggin’ HUGE location titles, jarring as they were) because I’ve been invested in this universe for years, and to see these characters that I have grown attached to, and some younger viewers would have actually grown up with (I can’t believe it’s been eight years since Iron Man) fighting each other, as enjoyable as the fights were, the one at the climax especially carried a real weight with it. I wouldn’t call the ending a downer, as it ends on a somewhat optimistic note in spite of all that’s happened, but on first viewing I left the theatre asking myself “how do I actually feel about that?” there’s certainly a mix of emotions to be felt here.

In summary Captain America: Civil War is great, it is still definitely a Captain America film but it has the rest of the Avengers along for the ride, and none of them feel wasted or overused, and it also manages to develop the relationships between characters and introduce two new characters and their motivations. This is a lot for one film to manage and Marvel Studios pulled it off splendidly. Definitely see this one, but make sure you’re up on the continuity beforehand.

Number 2: The Avengers

The Avengers is where it is on this list for several reasons, its significance as the first multi-franchise crossover of its kind (at least on this scale) can’t be ignored, the payoff to five years of build-up and arguably the biggest event to date in the entire Superhero genre. The big question of whether or not this eclectic gathering of heroes could function in the same narrative was one hovering above the film from the moment it was announced. Joss Whedon, in a stroke of particular genius in my opinion, decided to make that basically the plot of the film, and y’know what? It works, it works like fucking gangbusters. The plot keeps itself simple, Loki has returned from his exile with a magic spear with mind-control powers and an army of aliens waiting to be brought to Earth, the plot? Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D have to assemble the team and stop the bad guy, got it? Good. Okay, let’s get what negatives I do have out of the way, Hawkeye, who spends most of this film as Loki’s puppet, and Black Widow, who is mostly just there, are underdeveloped and don’t give you much reason to care. (Though admittedly this is difficult when they’re already competing with four other main characters.) The Hulk is basically an angry plot device that works when convenient, and the simultaneous mass-destruction of the Chitauri at the end is just a sin of contrived convenience, there, nit-picking done. The area this film really shines is in the character interactions, the contrasting personalities of each hero bounce of each other brilliantly. Particular praise has to go to the buddy dynamic between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, I said before that Robert Downey Jr. has a habit of overshadowing his own films but he doesn’t do that here, his always-on quick-wittedness contrasts nicely with Mark Ruffalo’s soft-spoken, somewhat nervous demeanour, which offers some middle-ground for the scene that these two share with Captain America, who as usual is the naïve but determined boy-scout of the group.  This scene in particular sticks out in my mind as one of the first real illustrations of how different these characters are. Thor is kind of the odd one out in the interpersonal dynamic but that’s okay because he has Loki to play off who, as ever, chews up and spits out most every scene he’s in like the lovechild of a Shakespearian villain and the concept of sass.

The supporting cast are good too, Samuel L. Jackson is Samuel L. Jackson, which is great, Clark Gregg gives a memorable final performance as Agent Coulson (at least in the movies thus far) and even if you haven’t seen anything leading up to this the characters are all basically established in the story (obviously I had seen what came before, and it definitely helped, but I don’t think it was necessary.)

Then there’s the final battle with the alien army which is basically a firework party thrown in celebration that this film is even happening, but it definitely feels earned, all that build-up amounted to a satisfying payoff, and in short The Avengers is not quite flawless, but it’s a damn near flawless version of exactly what it’s trying to be, it is only by a hair’s breadth that I put this one below number 1.

Number 1: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Yes, even after Civil War I still feel like this one belongs at number 1, this is the most subversive film of the lot both in plot and in execution, actually switching genres for part two, going from a retro cheese-fest adventure, to a modern spy thriller, albeit with a bit more Frisbee. Subversion remains a common theme throughout this film as midway through, a massive fixture throughout the entire continuity thus far is turned on it’s head, I promised I would be as spoiler-free as possible but let’s just say it makes for quite a coincidence in regards to a recent comic book twist involving Captain America.

This film is at number one because it uses the previous films as a jumping-off point in spectacular fashion, in a way that even Civil War didn’t quite match, Winter Soldier subverts the entire series thus far and takes the thoroughly old-fashioned Captain America and places him firmly in a gritty modern setting, with a dark, grounded, personal story. This is the kind of thing so many studios try to do and fail miserably. The Russo brothers knew exactly what they were doing here, bringing a golden-age character into modern times was always going to be problematic, because he simply wouldn’t fit in with modern ideals, rather than try to make him, they make the fact that he doesn’t a huge part of his character. It just works, I don’t say character arc because Cap really doesn’t have one, he’s every bit the incorruptible good-guy at the end as he is at the start, normally that would be a point to his detriment but here that’s the point, and because of it his character stands out all the more prominently, and mercifully the fish-out-of-water time displacement jokes that could easily have overpowered the tone of the film are kept to a good minimum. Sebastian Stan returns for a good run as The Winter Soldier, even if he’s not in the film a huge amount, but then he’s in it as much as he needs to be. Anthony Mackie is great as The Falcon, Cap’s soon-to-be regular wingman (pun intended) and all-round ace buddy, seriously this is the kind of man you want to have around in a crisis. Scarlett Johansson has the best chemistry she’s had with anyone so far with Chris Evans here, you really get the impression that they’ve been working together for a good while, her constantly ribbing him on his lack of any kind of a love life makes for some great dialogue, and I love the fact that there’s not even the suggestion of a romance there (beyond faking one to throw off pursuers I mean.) It’s almost as if people of the opposite sex can actually be in the same place without the need for a “will they/won’t they?” hanging over everything if you can imagine such an apparently outlandish concept. Sam Jackson is Sam Jackson, all good there, and Robert Redford brings a lot of depth to what could easily have been a one-note bureaucrat character, and it all comes together for just an all-round great cast.

This is the film that, out of all of them on this list I most hesitate to call a Superhero movie, and it also illustrates just how arbitrary a distinction that is. I don’t think it’s been particularly right to call Superhero films a genre for a while now, because they come across a large number of genres, but this is the one for which the distinction feels the most arbitrary, you could easily describe it as a sci-fi spy thriller, there just happens to be comic book characters in it. So many things in this movie on paper should not work, and they make it work, “realistic, dark and gritty” is a popular approach that more often than not just ruins an adaptation in a misguided attempt to be “serious”. Here though, not only does it work, it does so without compromising Captain America as a character. He is comic book goodness incarnate, and contagious to that effect towards the rest of the movie, I’ll say again, this should not work, and yet it does. Subversive really is the operative word here, and it does all of these things in a two-hour runtime that never feels long.

I could gush about this one forever but yeah, that’s why this one sits at number 1.

So, quick recap, the order is

#13 The Incredible Hulk

#12 Iron Man 2

#11 Iron Man

#10 Thor: The Dark World

#9 Avengers: Age of Ultron

#8 Ant-Man

#7 Iron Man 3

#6 Thor

#5 Captain America: The First Avenger

#4 Guardians of the Galaxy

#3: Captain America: Civil War

#2: The Avengers

#1 Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Bloody hell this was an undertaking, I didn’t expect to end up writing so much, anyone who’s shown the patience to have read the whole thing, thank you.

Do you agree with my list? Leave me a comment and let me know how wrong I am and why, although if you’re going to argue I do ask that you actually read why I put these where I did first.

Movie Reviews: Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

This first part will be spoiler-free for those who may not have seen it yet, I will warn you when I’m about to talk spoilers.

I know one more review probably won’t change anyone’s opinion on this, but I’m writing one anyway because Jesus Christ this movie is terrible, those who have me on Facebook (who, let’s be honest are the only people likely to read this) may have already seen my status. I did not like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Zack “Oh my fucking god who keeps hiring this man?” Snyder, has had the better part of three years to work on this, during which, he must’ve been aware of the polarising reception to his previous outing, Man of Steel, and no, the fact that he didn’t personally write the screenplay for that or this, is not an excuse, the decision to keep the not one, but two writers from Man of Steel, was, ultimately, his call as Director. Therefore, Snyder bears the responsibility for the incoherent mess that comprised the script he was directing.

With the benefit of three years to finish this film, the end result, perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with the state of DC Comics movies. First of all, it seems the only superhero Warner Bros sort of know how to do is Batman, so when Man of Steel rolls around, “ooh, let’s make it all gritty and grim like Batman. When that doesn’t work, because of course it fucking doesn’t, because Superman is not Batman and what works for one will not work for the other, what’s his response? “Oh, I know, I’ll put Batman in the next one!” It was bad enough before when he was trying to make a “grim and gritty” Superman, when that didn’t work, rather than address what may not have worked, he elected to crowbar in as many things as possible to make it work the next time. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results, well then I cite this latest atrocity as grounds to have Zack Snyder fucking sectioned!

Batman v, Superman stubbornly doubles down on everything that didn’t work about Man of Steel, and jettisons any of the levity or light-heartedness that might have made it work, in favour of an unrelentingly grim, and insufferably self-serious clusterfuck masquerading as a superhero crossover, cramming in as many cameos as possible with all the subtlety and tact one would expect of a sledgehammer. There is a scene, *spoiler alert* in which Wonder Woman, in possession of a hard drive full of hacked security footage, actually plays videos of the eventual cast of the justice league using their powers (or in the case of Cyborg, being turned into a Cyborg) one by one. That is not foreshadowing, and it is certainly not world-building, in fact to call it an in-movie trailer would be too kind. What this is, is a fucking PowerPoint presentation on what movies we’ll be getting in the coming years, that Zack Snyder seemed to honestly think would be a good idea for a scene!

You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned much about the story yet, that’s because there honestly isn’t much to tell. The entire narrative is a complete and utter mess, I don’t even think I could identify a protagonist in this movie, it’s not Superman, because he’s honestly not really in it that much, it’s not Batman because he’s almost completely reactionary and being positioned as an antagonist but doesn’t even manage that because the closest thing to an antagonist is Lex Luthor, played by a lanky twelve-year-old in his dad’s work clothes. Whoever keeps telling those in charge in Hollywood that Jesse Eisenberg is A) a full-grown man, and B) an actor, needs to stop lying to people, as he is clearly neither of those things. The only thing I’ve seen him in wherein his performance did not feel incredibly forced is The Social Network, in which he was playing an unlikeable obnoxious teenager, and thus, required little to no acting. (I think this is where I’m going to start talking spoilers by the way) Almost everything about his take on Lex Luthor is bad, gone is the proud, charismatic and cunning CEO steadfast in his convictions against the idea of humanity relying on an alien saviour. To be replaced with something that more closely resembles a mild teenage version of The Joker than it does Lex Luthor, only without the funny. (At one point in this film, he fills a jar with his own urine and places it on a senator’s desk in reference to an earlier conversation. All of this is played out completely straight-faced and seriously without a hint of self-awareness. I wish I was making that up.)

But I could forgive the liberal take on the character if even after watching the film I had some idea what his motivation was, as it seems to change from scene to scene. In the beginning, his motivation is the closest it gets to Luthor-esque. He wants to create a deterrent against Superman so that the world will not be at his mercy. To be fair. that sounds like exactly the kind of thing Lex Luthor would do, later in the film though, he completely loses sight of that in favour of some weird obsession with religious iconography.

He stops caring about the deterrent soon enough and starts talking about gods and demons with jarringly tangential links to Superman. After that he starts utilizing alien technology, then he gets all grandiose about “God bending to (his) will” when he threatens Martha Kent’s life in an attempt to get Superman to kill Batman. By the end of the film, he’s screaming “They’re coming!” it’s not made clear who he’s talking about. I can’t help but think a few important scenes must’ve been cut (which is alarming when you consider what they left in.) and a lot of context is either lost in the edit or flat-out missing.

Speaking of things that lack context, Batman’s main justification for deciding what he’s going to do, is that he has bad dreams about a potential future (which is essentially, the game Injustice: Gods Among Us coming to pass.) which, as motivations go, is lazy, contrived, and just flat out dumb. Especially when he was actually given quite a strong opening, which saw him running through the streets of Metropolis during the events of the battle in Man of Steel trying to save as many people as he can. Then he catches a glimpse of Superman forcing Zod backwards through a building, this is apparently what leads him to mistrust Superman. Which, depressingly, is just about the best-written part of this film.

Oh and Batman kills people in this by the way, like, a lot of people, so, that pathological fear of death and one rule against killing that he upholds above all else and is a huge and pivotal part of his character? “Screw that, let’s just show him shooting people between working out and hitting a monster truck tire with a sledgehammer bro!” I swear I’m fully expecting a deleted scene wherein Batman goes to Hooters and eats a ton of chicken wings, because “Dude, he’s so fuckin’ MANLY!” Also, he brands criminals now, BRANDS them! With a red-hot Batterang I think, because yeah who doesn’t remember Batman having a fetish for leaving scars?

You’re probably expecting me to round on Ben Affleck next, but I’m actually not going to, Ben Affleck was fine, in his defence, there is no actor in the world that could’ve made this god-awful script any better, I’m confident Ben Affleck could play Batman well, but not in a movie as terribly written as this one.

Also, the plot relies so heavily on convenience that you’d think everyone was a fucking clairvoyant. In preparation for the big match-up, Batman has made a pure Kryptonite spear, he stabs it into the ground inside a random building and leaves it there, later in the fight, he gets thrown into that very building by Superman, and pulls it out. No! there is no possible way he could’ve known the fight would end up going there! That is among the laziest writing ever, and it’s not even the laziest there is in this film.

Anyone want to guess the reason Batman eventually stops wanting to kill Superman and decides to trust him? If you don’t know already you won’t guess it, not because it’s clever or anything, quite the opposite in fact. The thing that stops Batman in his tracks when he has Superman dead to rights, is finding out that Superman also has a mother named Martha. At this point I forgot I was in a public cinema and shouted “WHAT!?” This was the stupidest, most contrived ceasefire I have ever witnessed in fiction. And it amounts to nothing because there’s another big-bad yet to fight in Doomsday, who in this movie is just Zod’s corpse given the Tyrant treatment from Resident Evil with alien tech, but that’s fine Doomsday is Doomsday.

The rest is explosions, Wonder Woman shows up for some screen-time and then a serious down-ending the film has not earned and I can’t take seriously.

In summary, this, unrelentingly dour, boring, over-long-yet-still-horribly-rushed self-aggrandising incomprehensible clusterfuck is the worst film featuring Batman or Superman I've ever been compelled to endure, and I'm counting Batman & Robin, AND Superman Returns.