Brent Reviews: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Brent Saltzman, a former student of mine, gives a wonderfully snarky review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I still haven't seen it yet as I plan to check it out after Thanksgiving.

http://www.thedailymarvel.com/1/post/2013/11/brent-reviews-the-hunger-games-catching-fire.html

Why Superman Shouldn't Kill

Man of Steel was released on Blu-Ray and DVD today, so I thought it would be a good time to bring out something I originally posted on Facebook a few months back.

Okay, by this point, most of you are probably are aware that, in Man of Steel, Superman kills General Zod; more specifically, he twists his neck until he's dead in order to prevent his heat vision from turning a handful of innocent bystanders into ash. This, of course, sparked immediate debate among the fan community with some insisting that, "Superman does NOT kill" while others responding that "He HAS killed" and, still others, reasoning that, "in the modern world, he would HAVE to kill in order to be effective."  I hope to address each of those positions in this post and, maybe, give you a bit more insight into why this is such an important issue for superfans.

Okay, first of all let me address the "Superman has killed before" argument: more specifically, he has killed General Zod before, in both the comic books and the movies.  Most famously, he killed Zod in Superman II, the film that is often cited as the best Superman movie.  This can be excused for a couple of reasons:

1. Rather than squeezing the life out of him with his bare hands, as he does in Man of Steel, Superman tosses Zod into a smoke filled chasm.  Any comic book fan can tell you, this does NOT mean that Zod is dead; as long as there's no body, they can come back (and sometimes even when there is--- Jason Todd, I'm looking at you).  Sure, the assumptions is that he 'died' but this was in the Fortress of Solitude; for all we know, those chasms were the gateway to the Phantom Zone or something.  In fact, there are cut scenes (which were re-inserted for certain re-releases and telecast) where it is revealed Zod was not actually killed and Superman happily drops off the newly de-powered villains in an earthly prison.
2. Even if we assume that it was the filmmakers' intention to have Superman kill Zod (the deleted scenes would indicate it wasn't) the makers of Superman II can be forgiven for one simple reason:  They didn't know any better! You see, this was a film made by a bunch of middle-aged guys who hadn't read a comic book since they were kids and, while they were certainly familiar with the basic premise of the character (strange visitor from another planet, more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet, etc.), they may not have been as familiar with some of his more subtle characteristics; in other words, they weren't exactly fanboys. And, Let's be honest, these guys should just be applauded for successfully moving the live-action superhero beyond the 1960's Batman.

As for other instances (particularly in the comics) where Superman has killed, the answer is a bit more complicated.  You see, Superman is a character with a 75 year publication history; dozens, if not hundreds, of creators have interpreted and re-interpreted the character in, literally, thousands of stories and, yes, a few of them have had Superman take lives (note:  when one looks at EVERY story EVER told with a superhero, I doubt you can find ANY superhero who is NOT guilty of manslaughter.... except maybe Captain Marvel).  Previous stories are often reworked or just out and out ignored by subsequent writers. So, let's simplify it a bit:  to all the stories where Superman takes a life that were written before, say, 1985, I will also give them the "they didn't know any better pass."

You see, in the mid-1980's, works like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen ushered in an era where superheroes were analyzed much more closely.  They were deconstructed and picked apart and the little things that made them distinctive, rather than being guidelines, now became guiding principles for the characters.  It wasn't just a 'general rule' that Superman didn't kill; it was a defining part of his persona.  So, let's look at the instances since this point where Superman has killed.  First of all, there aren't many; these days when Superman kills somebody, more often than not, it turns out to be some sort of alternate reality where Superman ends up setting up some sort of new world order that he rules with an iron fist. In fact, that is the entire premise of the new video game Injustice.

As for the mainstream continuity stories, there are two of note:

1. Superman, again, executes General Zod.  This was in the late 80's during John Byrne's run where he attempted to redefine and modernize the character.  Superman, executes a trio of Kryptonian villains fearing what might happen if three evil versions of himself were ever unleashed on the earth. First of all, this story was intentionally supposed be shocking; it was meant to play off of the expectation that Superman does NOT kill.  Secondly, over the course of several issues, there is fallout from this that sends Superman into a downward spiral of despair and results in his vowing to never kill again.  Also, this story has pretty much been ignored for most of the last 25 years and, in comics, when a story is ignored long enough--- you can pretend it didn't happen.
   
2. Doomsday: This one is tricky.  It was a fight to the death but, what most tend to remember about this fight is not Doomday's death but Superman's.  The final blow killed BOTH characters.  Also, it turned out that neither one really died--- also, this story was basically just a way to sell comics by 'killing' Superman.  Also, it was a pretty stupid story.

So, there are a couple of instances where Superman has killed in the last 25 years or so--- but they're mostly either ignored or just shitty writing; the best stories stick with the 'no kill rule'.  Which brings me to my next point:  In the best Superman stories, Superman is depicted has having an absolute no kill rule.  Among the three best Superman stories ever told are Alan Moore's Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?, Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman, and Mark Waid and Alex Ross's Kingdom Come. Superman's no kill rule is explicit and unbending in all of these; in fact, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow ends with a Superman so distraught over having to kill one of his foes that, as penance, he exposes himself to Gold Kryptonite, wiping out his own powers forever.

So, in short, Superman has been allowed to kill in some stories but never in the best ones.

So, what about the idea that a 'more realistic' Superman would have to kill in order to be effective. True, in the real world, heroes, especially in the case of police and military, have to kill but, you know what's great about Superman?  He doesn't live in the real world.  If you're going to approach him realistically, you're already kind of missing the point.  Superman isn't supposed to be a reflection of reality; he is supposed to represent an ideal.  In the real world, sometimes it is necessary to kill but, in an ideal world, it shouldn't be.  We should aspire to be something greater.  That is what Superman represents; he is able to achieve the things that we cannot achieve.  In fact, I would argue that, the more bleak the real world becomes, the more important it becomes that Superman retains his principles. What's great about all fiction is that it isn't bound by the rules of reality.

So, in the end, the question is not has Superman killed nor is it would Superman kill but should Superman kill?  More specifically, when re-introducing this character to a new generation, if you're going to be true to the ideals that the character has come to represent over his 75 year history, SHOULD  you allow him to kill? The answer is no.

So, a few ways the filmmakers could have done it better:

1. Obviously, he doesn't  kill Zod; make the stakes something else.  Perhaps he has to choose with preserving Krypton's knowledge or saving a human, or make it so his actions result in Zod's death but it's not his hands around his neck; maybe it turns out that, not growing up here, Earth's atmosphere is toxic to him--- so Superman can either let the terra-forming continue, which would allow Zod's survival, or allow Zod to die--- it's not perfect, but you see where I'm going with this? This is off the top of my head, certainly given enough time the writers could have come up with something better.
2. He still kills Zod but the stakes are much higher: In the film, Zod is killed because he attempted to kill a small group (about a dozen) people with heat vision. If you really want to justify Superman using lethal force, put the whole city of Metropolis (hell, the whole planet earth) at risk.  Superman kills Zod or millions die; that's more feasible.
3. He eventually has to kill but NOT IN THE FIRST MOVIE, you build up to it; establish the rule, thus it is that much more significant when it is broken.

Also, they can redeem themselves in the sequel.  I'll give them credit, in the film, Superman is obviously remorseful for his actions.  Maybe they'll bring this up in the sequel; perhaps it will haunt him and be the reason he vows to never again take a life.  Maybe this was the plan all along but, given the sloppiness surrounding some other plot details, I doubt it.

In conclusion, I just want to note that Man of Steel is by no means a bad movie; it's good summer fun with lots of Superman punching things but, much like Superman itself, it should aspire to be something better.

Thor: The Dark World

This movie should have been a mess. It draws inspiration from Walt Simonson's seminal 1980's run on the Thor comic which was an odd blend of sci-fi, superheroes, and sword and sorcery.  Pulling off a concept such as this in a big-budget blockbuster is a challenge to say the least but, somehow, it works.

The film clocks in at just under 2 hours but it certainly feels longer.  It doesn't exactly drag but there is a lot of plot packed into that time. Some might even say the plot is overly complicated or convoluted. Fortunately, Thor: the Dark World has one overwhelmingly positive trait that allows you to look past its flaws: it's fun! In fact, while it is not the best Marvel movie by a long shot, it might be the most fun outside of Avengers. Not to mention the fact that, despite having neither Robert Downey Jr. or Joss Whedon, it still manages to have the sharpest wit of any of the films (with the possible exception of Avengers).

After the in-depth character study that was Iron Man 3, Thor: the Dark World comes as a refreshing surprise.  After all, you can look under the armor and explore who Tony Stark really is but, with Thor, there is no need; Thor, simply, is Thor.  These characters are gods and, therefore, archetypes.  They aren't meant to be multifaceted.  That doesn't mean that they aren't without complexity and the familial relationship between Thor, his brother, Loki, and the Asgardian royal family is mined to give the story some emotional depth but, at the end of the day, Thor is still the noble warrior and protector and Loki is still the treacherous villain. No in-depth psychological profiles are needed. 

It surpasses its predecessor in every way.  Mostly, it does this by taking the parts of that movie that worked best (Asgard and Thor smashing things with his hammer) and gives us a lot more of those.  In the case of Asgard, while the first film was about 30% Asgard, 70% Earth, Thor: The Dark World doesn't just reverse that dynamic but does it one better with a ratio of about 80% Asgard versus 20% earth.  Most of the earthbound sequences involve a lighthearted sub-plot featuring Darcy, her intern (yes, the intern gets her own intern), and Eric Selvigg trying to re-establish a link with Asgard.  It's welcome comic relief and helps keep the film grounded whenever it verges on becoming a bit heavy handed.

 The cast is excellent; I found Kat Dennings delightful as Darcy (which only serves as a testament to how truly bad Two Broke Girls must really be as I can't make it through 5 minutes of that show without wanting to claw my eyes out) and, of course, Tom Hiddleston steals every scene he's in as Loki.  Stellan Skaarsgard also provides a lot of the film's laughs, reprising his role as Erik Selvigg from the first Thor and Avengers and showing that not every mortal who finds himself caught up in superheroics manages to come out of things with all of their faculties in place.

The film looks awesome as well.  A lot of big budget blockbusters have been skimping when it comes to cinematography but not Thor: The Dark World; it is probably the most visually striking of any of the Marvel movies.

At the end of the day, Thor: The Dark World is by no means a work of art but it certainly is a lot of fun.

After Credit Thoughts: The after-credit scenes, which have now become ubiquitous in the Marvel movies, have now taken on a new role.  There is now a 'mid-credits' scene (the one that takes place right after the main credit sequence).  This started with the Thanos tease in Avengers and usually serves to tease a future film.  This allows the audience to leave the theater without feeling that they are missing something (with Thor: TDW it is a tease for next summer's Guardians of the Galaxy).  There is then another 'post-credits' sequence that is mostly a little something extra for the fans; the schwarma  scene from Avengers, Tony Stark's 'therapy' scene from Iron Man 3, and, for Thor: TDW, I'll just say stick around for the super-happy ending of the movie.

   

November's Album of the Month: Queen- The Game

I think this might be my favorite Queen album after A Night at the Opera.  In many ways, those two albums most represent Queen as a band.  A Night at the Opera is Queen at their most grandiose, a fun sort of tongue-in-cheek kind of prog-rock. The Game represents another aspect of what made Queen great: they're musical chameleons.  The album's opener, "Play the Game", and closer, "Save Me", are the only two tracks that are distinctly 'Queen'; the rest of the album they change up styles and, in doing so, become unrecognizable.

The most famous example, of course, is "Another One Bites the Dust."  It's well documented that, due to the track's success on Black radio, that many assumed that Queen were actually a Black band.  Most also know "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", the band's dead on take on rockabilly but the entire album is an experiment in musical dress up.

"Need Your Loving Tonight" is a Cars style, new wave number, "Rock It (Prime Jive)" is an attempt at heartland rock and "Don't Try Suicide" is clearly influenced by the Police (I can't find anything to confirm this, but my guess is that it might actually be Queen's way of addressing the controversy surrounding the Police's own suicide themed single, "I Can't Stand Losing You", which had been banned by the BBC the previous year).  Also, "Dragon Attack" is just a great tune that splits the difference between the funk of "Another One Bites the Dust" and Queen's typical, hard rock style.

Key Tracks: "Play the Game", "Another One Bites the Dust", "Dragon Attack", "Crazy Little Thing Called Love"