Why we look up in the sky...

UPDATE: You can read my spoiler-heavy "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" review here 
UPDATE 2: You can read my "treatment" for a Superman movie here

For me it started when I was very young. There was a red cape I wore regularly - and that my Mom still has - a VHS tape featuring a handful of the Fleischer cartoons, Superfriends, Ruby Spears, George Reeves and a handful of comic books. It has since become a life goal of mine to write Superman in comics or some form of media.

I love Superman. I love his mythology, what he stands for and ultimately, the idea of what he represents, something I'll mention a few times here... an ideal to strive towards.

I have been an outspoken critic of "Man of Steel" for the last three years. I don't outright hate it... I don't think it's a particularly great movie, but as a Superman movie it fails on multiple levels and is not very good at all. I hate it's portrayal and representation of Superman. It's unfortunate, because I LOVE the cast. But I'm on the same level with Mark Waid, Dan Slott, Jamal Igle, Tom Brevoort and many other outspoken comic book personalities who know a thing or two about Superman.

When I first saw "Man of Steel," I was left very uncomfortable. I tried to be positive and justify what occurred as the fog of Superman on the big screen was still thick. After a day or two, it started to wear off and I realized that like Waid, the movie broke my heart.

With that said, I am also NOT a huge fan of the Donner movies. I understand why people love them, and yes, Christopher Reeve embodies a near-perfect Superman. But from a story standpoint, I've never been a huge fan. That extends to "Superman Returns." "Returns" is essentially "Richard Donner's Superman III" and that was both it's greatest strength and greatest weakness.

I'm going to see "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice," albeit with low expectations. On one hand, I'll see it to form an opinion. On the other hand, I'm interested to see Ben Affleck's Batman and the big screen debut of Wonder Woman. Will they improve this version of Superman to be more like the Superman that has been built for three-quarters of a century? I don't know, there's a lot of ground to make up, but as you may see by the end of this, because I believe in who Superman really is, the truth of the character, there may still be hope. Going dark and broody is against what Superman is and if you think it makes him "interesting" then we're all a lot more cynical than we care to admit. If you make a Superman (or Batman movie for that matter) that you can't take a child to - even Ben Affleck has said he won't let his 4 year old see BvS - then you've already failed. Of course, kids will still go - after all, kids went to see "Deadpool" but that's not the point I'm making, obviously.

As "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" is upon us and my Facebook postings have been rife with Superman material and questions raised by friends, I decided it was time to finally address this issue in one fell swoop. This particular writing deals with one of the more controversial aspects of "Man of Steel" - Superman killing Zod and the ultimate question of "does Superman kill?"

No. Superman does not kill.

Let me get that exhaustive Forbes article where writer Mark Hughes justifies "Superman the killer" out of the way. I read it. A few times, actually. And it's still wrong. There's an argument out there that "Man of Steel" defenders use regularly, arguing "well, Superman has killed in the comics before, so there's precedent" or "in the Golden Age he killed people, 'Man of Steel' was the Golden Age version!"

Two things here about "it happened in the comics." 1) Batman used to carry a gun when he was first created. Shortly thereafter he no longer did and he began to abhor guns because they were the instrument used to murder his parents. To this day, Batman hates and does not use guns. Batman also doesn't kill. 2) As comic creator extraordinaire and Superman authority Mark Waid so passionately pointed out in response to that Forbes article:

  

You see how stupid the "well he did in the comics in the 1940s" argument is? This is a character that over 75 years has become an icon, an American myth. Something that obviously means something more to a lot of people. Suggesting it's okay to present a betrayal of a character and brand's core values because of something that happened in the early days doesn't hold water. It's also important to note that in the Golden Age, you never really saw the villain die and it was often in outlandish, pulpy ways which were typical at the time (think the German Mechanic in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). You can't really point to those and say "See!"

To quickly divert, but keep with his "it happened in the comics idea," a serial "Man of Steel" defender often points to a panel from Superman #1 as the definitive take on Pa Kent and the justification for Pa Kent's out-of-character portrayal in said film:

Unfortunately for the defender, this is a man telling a child to hide his powers and show restraint, followed up by his mother telling him to assist humanity when the time comes. There's no malice, no message of "maybe let people die," there's a father just being concerned for his son - something that is part of every iteration of Pa Kent. There's no way to state or use this panel as definitive. 1) Clark is still a boy who has yet to understand his powers and 2) Pa Kent could be referring to using a secret identity. There's no definitive statement of Pa Kent's true feelings.

Back to the "no killing" thing. The Forbes article highlights other examples too. Like in the imaginary tale "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Superman kills Mr. Mxzyptlk. The article's author outright IGNORES the thing Superman does immediately after, without hesitation - he kills himself out of guilt. He stops being Superman.

Another example Hughes uses is Superman #22 where Superman kills a version of Zod, Quex-Ul and Zaora after they commit a genocide. What the writer ignores is that after Superman does the deed, he's so wracked with guilt and shame he exiles himself from Earth. Eventually returning after an alien helps him come to grips. Also of note, the public was unaware of Superman's actions, his exile and decision to stop being Superman was completely self-imposed.

Superman #75 is also cited. The famous "Death of Superman" where Superman and Doomsday apparently punch each other to death. Except neither of them die. Superman had entered a "Kryptonian sleep" and Doomsday was in a coma, only to be found, revived and strapped to an asteroid by the Cyborg Superman. And if you aren't satisfied with that and want to still believe that Superman killed Doomsday (which he didn't) it was an instance where he sacrificed his own life.

Each one of the author's citations can be easily picked apart as alternate tales, or Superman making the ultimate sacrifice himself, or being willing to make that sacrifice. Each comes back to the same conclusion. Superman does not kill. So if your argument is "well, it happens in the comics" then "Man of Steel" should have been the beginning and the end of Superman, because when he kills in the comics, he stops being Superman.

Another argument often made is "Superman II." When Superman depowers Zod, Ursa and Non in the Fortress of Solitude. Supeman throws Zod into a smokey abyss, Lois punches Ursa into a smokey abyss and Non stupidly falls into the abyss. If you know the history of the first two Superman movies, you know it's a mess. In Richard Lester's version, that's how the villains meet their end. It's ambiguous as to whether or not they're dead, but you're just meant to assume it. But in original director Richard Donner's cut, which is now considered the definitive version, the three de-powered Kryptonians are arrested along with Lex Luthor. That was actually shot. That's how the movie was supposed to end. It once again reinforces the point.

Superman does not kill. He certainly CAN kill. But he chooses not to and that's what makes him Superman.

Let me explain why as simply as I possibly can. Take the very core basics of the Superman mythos. Clark Kent was raised by two genuine, non-religious, mid-western Americans. Their politics didn't matter, all that mattered was that they were good people. They cared deeply about others, enough so that when they found a crashed rocketship in a field carrying a baby, they feared the worst. They feared for the child's life. Who did that to a baby? Were they going to come and take the child? They didn't know this child, where he came from or what his future would entail. All they could do was what they thought was right: take him in as their own and give him a sense of hope for a brighter tomorrow. They valued the life of this complete stranger and raised him on something we once considered a core American value - the American Way, if you will - compassion for your fellow citizen and the value of life. That's ultimately what has been built upon for more than 75 years from what was created by two young Jewish immigrants looking towards their better tomorrow.

Clark Kent was raised to help others less fortunate than him. Even if the Kents didn't have much, Clark was raised to show compassion, valuing every life above even his own. When his powers started to develop, Clark was steered by the good people he was raised by to use those abilities to help people when necessary but keep them a secret for his own protection, before he developed the Superman identity. As any parent would - but not to the extreme extent of Kevin Costner's Pa Kent - there would be some justifiable trepidation along the way. But Jonathan and Martha Kent's motivation for taking in that alien baby was giving him a sense of hope. They knew eventually it would be their son's duty to pass that on. That's what any parent ever wants, for their child to learn from them and improve upon them. The Kents, not Jor-EL, gave their son an ideal to strive towards. Now as Superman, the most powerful person on the planet, it was his duty to take what he learned from his parents and improve upon it, giving all of humanity a sense of hope for a better tomorrow - an ideal to strive towards.

For this reason, we as consumers of the Superman myth, and beyond that - as humans - people who in real-life believe in the good of our fellow human - are never supposed to relate to Superman. We are supposed to aspire to be him. We aren't supposed to connect with him on a level that says, "I share this experience." Over time, as we've all become more cynical over the years, we start to relate and identify with things - people, causes, ideas. Superman - once the most popular character on the planet - becomes "too good," or "boring" because he "can do anything" and he stops being what he is meant to be - a symbol of hope. He has to be explained as an alien, or a messiah. But Superman is more than just a super-powered alien, he's not even supposed to be a Christ-like figure. In fact, the moment you want Superman to be "grounded," "realistic" or "believable" is the moment you're not really looking for Superman.

Even New 52 Pa Kent gets it.

Superman is the best version of us, he's above all of us. He's everything we hope for and everything we can hope to be and attain. Using his abilities to help the less fortunate, stalwart in his belief of doing the right thing, unwavering in his compassion for people and always being able to see the smallest shred of decency in a person - even Lex Luthor - human, alien or otherwise. Ultimately, he believes in the inherent good in people, sometimes to a fault. That's who we are meant to be, that's the ideal we strive towards.

If Superman becomes a killer even when "absolutely needed", then there is no point to him. When Superman kills, he's not better than any of us. He no longer represents that ideal. He's just an alien with powers. He becomes just like any other person, who as Forbes' Rob Salkowitz put it: "The character who spent the last 75 years being better than us because of his ability to place principle above power is now just like any flawed mortal who can be pushed to extremes by fear and desperation."

That's the thing about Superman to reiterate the earlier point, the abilities beyond those of mortal men is not what makes him super, it's his values and who he is, the pinnacle of the human spirit and compassion - his principle.

In "Man of Steel," Superman snaps General Zod's neck, killing him. For many it's the ultimate moment of contention. For some like me, it's just the icing on the cake of an entire story that had already misrepresented everything about not only Superman, but Clark Kent. Many say "well, he had only been Superman for three days" or "he had no other choice." But that's not entirely true, he had only learned to fly in the past few days. He'd already been saving people and had already been using his powers. He had also been Clark Kent for 33 years at this point and should have at least developed the basic core value of the character - to rise above human pettiness and always find a better way. 

He could have done anything else. Flown Zod away, covered Zod's eyes, found a way to knock him out, put him in some kind of stasis, found another way to send him back to The Phantom Zone, ANYTHING besides killing him, because that goes against everything Superman is and is meant to be. But this was a story choice that Snyder, Goyer and Warner Brothers decided to make that went against EVERYTHING that has been built around Superman, his character and ultimately as Salkowitz points out, the brand.

But this was a cynical, construed version of the character who destroyed a man's livelihood by wrapping a tractor-trailer around a tree because said man was a bully. This was a character who nonchalantly floated over a gas truck, allowing it to hit a parking garage and explode, likely killing a few people. This was a character who - rather than taking the fight elsewhere or using his super-speed to remove bystanders - simply told people on Smallville's Main Street to go inside and lock the doors while he fought equally as powerful people and the U.S. military reigned down enormous firepower. This was a character who made out with his girlfriend in the center of a literal crater of death. Long before Superman and Zod tore apart the skyline of Metropolis, and long before Superman snapped Zod's neck, he was already gone.

The opportunity was there to show Superman's real weakness - have him not focuses on Zod, but saving as many lives as he could, ultimately giving Zod a huge edge in the battle. The filmmakers chose not to go that route.

"Man of Steel" did some things really well, honestly. The cast is EXCEPTIONAL. The first quarter of the movie that took place on Krypton was really well done (the world established and history behind it was neat). The visuals when Jor-EL explained to Clark the history of Krypton were really neat. And I really liked how Lois figured out who Clark was and ultimately helped him develop his secret identity. But those were ultimately small tweaks that were bogged down and muddied by the darker aspects and overall depressing tones of the film. The moment Superman takes off and flies for the first time was great. And that soundtrack... oh man, that Hans Zimmer score is fantastic (I did and still love the new theme). Those story elements were well-done, but they paled in comparison to the dour, mopey characterization of Clark, The Kents and the ultimate misrepresentation of Superman. Making Superman dark, broody and a ultimately a killer doesn't make him more mature or interesting, it betrays him.

There was absolutely nothing hopeful about Superman in "Man of Steel." It was a movie about an alien invasion and another alien who decides to stop them leaving behind a wake of death and destruction.

As many will say, "well just because it isn't YOUR Superman," or as a friend of mine often says to me, "I'm rigid," "extremist" or not "open-minded" about other interpretations of Superman. Not "open-minded." I know he means well, but it's kind of insulting. For example, The New 52 Superman is a different interpretation of the character. I've been open-minded about it, there's a lot right and a lot wrong in my opinion. But if you read Superman comics religiously like I do, you know that the New 52 Superman has started to adopt the more classic traits, and even that the pre-New 52 version is still around. It feels like DC is trying to reset the brand at least in the comics.

But what of interpretations? When you strip away the core values of what makes a character special, then you're no longer in the realm of "interpretation." Take Daredevil for example, since that's timely and amazingly relevant. The TV show is an interpretation of the comic character that has many differences from, but shares the same core values as the comics. He seeks justice, doesn't kill and he's Catholic. In fact, one of the show's biggest running themes in season one and two is about how Daredevil won't betray his principles and become a killer. Had the TV show removed just one of those principles, for example his Catholicism, you're stripping away a core aspect of his character and no longer telling an "interpretation," you're presenting an entirely different character. And it's funny, Stan Lee and Bill Everett didn't outright make him a Catholic or have his religion motivate him at first, but it's become such defining trait of the character that you'd never think otherwise.

Yes, there are exceptions... in Superman's case the "Injustice" franchise is a good example. But the difference there is that "Injustice" is about what happens when Superman abandons his principle and kills the Joker in a fit of rage... becomes a tyrant in an alternate universe... and is ultimately stopped by the "true" Superman from the main universe. Confusing right? It's not though, because Superman doesn't kill. 

One of my favorite Superman stories ever is "Ending Battle."  In this story-arc, the telepathic super anti-hero Manchester Black unleashes every Superman villain from Master Jailer to Lex Luthor in an effort to break the Man of Steel. The climax of the story features Black using his telepathy to make Superman believe that Black murdered Lois. Superman walks into his apartment to find her dead, truly believing everything he sees. Black is trying to push Superman over the edge, prove that deep down and pushed hard enough, he's a killer. But even with his dead wife in front of him, Superman refuses to kill. Dumbfounded and realizing the truth about Superman, Black ends the ruse, Lois is fine and the last we ever see of Manchester Black is him committing suicide. In trying to get Superman to break his moral code, Black himself became a super-villain and he couldn't live with the fact that in trying to corrupt Superman, he corrupted himself.

The divisiveness "Man of Steel" has caused over the years proves that the decision to make Superman a killer in "Man of Steel" has hurt the overall brand. The critical and fan response to "Man of Steel" was so tepid that it did feel like Batman's involvement was rushed (I am seriously intrigued by Affleck as Batman, and I think there are some neat ideas at play in the DCEU, the characterization of Superman - and that's a big one - is not one of them).

Superman is a fictional character owned by Warner Brothers. They can do whatever the hell they want with him. I shouldn't care, right? Quite the opposite. The character is iconic, what he means transcends the comics, movies... all of it. The Superman shield is instantly recognized all over the world, a brand that has been built for nearly 80 years, one that arguably every superhero is a derivative. So when you fundamentally change the characterization and principles of that brand after nearly 80 years for a mass audience, you're running the risk of destroying the brand. The divisiveness caused by "Man of Steel" is proof of this questionable brand management tactic. Ultimately, as Forbes' Rob Salkowitz put it:

"What did Warner Bros. get for undoing 75-plus years of equity in a multi-billion dollar brand? Well, it appears they set up the next movie, which picks up the thread of having a super-powered alien around who is unbound by any firm principle, and feels entitled to dispatch his enemies if he sees fit.

That might be a cool story. It’s just not a Superman story that anyone would recognize."

So why doesn't Superman kill? Why should he be the ultimate good guy?

Because he's better than you, than me, than all of us. He's Superman.

Thoughts on DC Rebirth

DC Rebirth is exciting. The decision to have Geoff Johns - perhaps one of the most passionate DC guys on the planet - make the announcement was insanely wise. You could feel the raw emotion in his voice. You could SEE the love he has for the characters. And most importantly, to me, there was a feeling of wonder and optimism that has been sorely missing from the DC Universe.

I'm a lifetime DC Comics fan. I always have been. I always will be. So I'm always intrigued when DC tries something new in the form of a line-wide revamp. It's actually part of DC's DNA. Whether it was the introduction of the Silver Age characters, Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Final Crisis, One Year Later, Flashpoint, The New 52, DC You... part of the DC Universe is evolution and experimentation. Marvel does it too, but not quite to the extent of DC. No doubt each "event" is met with varying degrees of success and failure, but DC really puts itself out there in an effort to create something new.

I'm not going to get into stuff like editorial misconduct or how certain voices in comics feel about DC and some of their staff, this is purely about the universe and the business of said universe.

I'll also preface this by stating what should be obvious and needs to be fixed. Despite billion dollar movies and merchandise literally everywhere depicting the characters of DC, Marvel and so on, comic sales are in the tank. They suck. We're talking about an industry where the most popular books once sold over a million copies and now? The best-selling book barely cracks 250,000 copies.

There are a number of factors to this. Certainly price is one of them - single issues are at minimum $2.99 compared to under a buck of days past. But one of the biggest problems is distribution. But I think the other problem is content (this is a point for a later post). I do believe that comics need to go back to being able to tell an entire story within the confines of a single issue. Sure graphic novel and trade sales do decently, but that isn't going to sustain the industry. I do think there is a place both for multi-issue arcs, and standalone stories.

I digress... back to DC. 

The point is DC takes risks with story and characters that have histories of 75-plus years. But part of the core of DC is and always has been legacy. There are certain characters, namely Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman who must ALWAYS remain. That's just the way it is. But legacy has always been integral to DC's core. So to see them bringing that back is exciting.

There are plenty of rumors surrounding exactly what rebirth will entail... will Classic Pre-Flashpoint Superman emerge as the one true Superman? Will the original World War 2 era Justice Society of America be revived and retake their rightful place? The possibilities are endless and with the New 52 update of some elements of the DC Universe as the basic framework, this could truly be a big step in the right direction.

For me, the one thing that always set DC apart was that it was the place you went for optimism, hope and a sense of wonder. As a reader and fan, I've felt that has been missing in the New 52 until recently. Part of that to me is the state of Superman. The Man of Steel sets the tone for the DC Universe, whether editorial and creators know it or not. If he's brooding or angry or sad or even slightly dark, the ENTIRE DC Universe follows suit. That's what happened with the New 52. We had a Superman that was darker, angrier and a bit more brutal. He was more fists than brains and ultimately, the entire line shifted that way initially.

Superman is the key to everything DC. Look at the movies. My feelings for Man of Steel notwithstanding (I am not a fan), it sets the tone for a violent, dark and ultimately spectacle-rich movie experience. The proof? The next two movies. The first features two superheroes fighting and the second is a movie about villains.

So if Rebirth is indeed bringing back this Classic Superman in more of a mainstream role, you're going to see a giant shift in the tone of the DC Universe, especially since this Superman now has a son. It's really kind of exciting as a fan.

This idea of Superman being the key to it all also suggests to me that there is some veracity in those rumors about WB being concerned about Batman v. Superman.

What do I think caused this shift? The Flash TV show.

More than a decade ago, Christopher Nolan's Batman films began. The first two are good movies that sort of capture the essence of Batman. Their popularity and serious tone suggested that's what fans wanted and everything started to shift that way. But Batman doesn't set the tone of the DC Universe and since then, DC has struggled to find the right footing. Nolan's films are their own thing. They do a lot of masterful things, but at their core they are slightly embarrassed by the source material.

Contrast that to The Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl TV shows and you see a more full-on embrace of what makes DC great. The Flash is DC at its best. Melodramatic, epic, funny, adventurous, action-packed, serious and wacky. That's DC.

These shows are immensely popular because of that. They embrace what makes DC great. They aren't super-serious grimdark (Arrow was at first, but it was also very in line with Mike Grell's GA). It's the same formula Marvel uses for the movies and TV... just embrace what these are: comics.

Say what you will, but there are a lot of hard-working people at DC that really do work tirelessly to try and keep the market afloat. To try different things with these characters, to explore and experiment. But sales haven't been great.

Even as they make big changes to try and be more inclusive to attract new readers, I have serious questions about whether or not those readers and people who called for and praised change even bothered to show up at the stores with their wallets ready. Maybe they bought the trades. That's great, but not going to sustain the industry. First and foremost, DC is a business and they must sustain.

It's funny, as DC launched DC You in an effort to change the brand, it featured Superman losing his powers but still doing whatever he could to be Superman. He was still fighting, out these trying to make a difference. That's exactly what DC was doing, proving once again Superman was setting the tone. And with his powers being restored and Classic Superman being brought into the fold, it feels like a return to greatness and here comes rebirth... an "ongoing mission" to remain true to DC's DNA.

There's a lot I liked about the New 52. Namely, the crazy Wonder Woman mythology and putting old man Ollie to rest, making Green Arrow young again. I'm a big Green Arrow fan, but old man Ollie had run his course and I think Justice League: Cry for Justice proved that.

With all of this... a restored sense of hope and optimism coming to the DC Universe, there's a contingent of folks out there who are in constant attack mode when it comes to DC. That's too bad. No matter what DC does, they can't win and that's just too bad. Whether it's a satire site that just points out DC's own follies, or a rumor site looking to pat itself on the back... or a contingent of rightfully burned former employees or readers... there's just always a lot of negativity and lots of times at DC.

At the end of the day, I hope this changes things. I hope it drives people to stores or creates new conversations with great, big ideas. I do hope distribution changes and that DC can indeed hold prices at $2.99 and just sell a ton more comics. I hope the same for Marvel as well.

The truth is, for the industry to thrive, Marvel and DC need to thrive. Retailers need to thrive.

I love DC Comics. I love the DC Universe and I hope to play in it one day. But as a fan, I can't tell you the last time I missed an issue of Action Comics or Superman both out of love and habit.

Ultimately, the energy and initial buzz of DC Rebirth has me looking up to the sky once more.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens: My review of the billion dollar baby

 

Look, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the biggest and most successful movie in history. Only Episode VIII can dethrone it, so yeah, I decided to review it.  ALSO SPOILERS. BIG FAT SPOILERS.

My favorite movie of all-time - and the film I consider the greatest movie ever made - was created by George Lucas and stars Harrison Ford. But this isn't about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones, this is about that OTHER franchise... so let me preface this. I was maybe in 6th grade when I discovered Star Wars. This was in 1995, my dad had boxes of old VHS tapes and one day I happened to pick out and pop in Star Wars: A New Hope.

Looking back it could have been the marketing push that really prompted me to watch the movie as we were on the cusp of the resurgence of everything Star Wars. Prior to my discovery of Star Wars, the superheroes of DC and Marvel were (and still are) my primary interest. But when that wave of everything Star Wars hit (ultimately leading up to the releases of the Special Editions) I was ENTHRALLED. I had the Kenner figures, the Micro Machines, I was Han Solo for Halloween in 6th grade... I was HOOKED.

I remember much of 7th grade (and 1997-1998) being about Star Wars PC games, specifically the X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter series and eventually Shadows of the Empire. Shadows is still my favorite Star Wars story, Han Solo was replaced by Dash Rendar as my favorite Star Wars character (yes, you can argue that Rendar was just a proxy Han, but whatever). So yes, I loved Star Wars. It was ALWAYS secondary to the superheroes, but I was totally all-in.  (I still collect Han Solo figures... mostly because they never made another Dash Rendar).

Then the prequels happened. I hung on for a while... I still played fantastic games like Jedi Knight and what not... but it was losing its appeal. After Episode II, I was left so indifferent to Star Wars that I just didn't care (I didn't even bother to see Episode III in theaters). So when everyone was having their religious experiences when The Force Awakens trailer hit, I was still left feeling empty about this franchise and I kept saying "this movie has to deliver."

Did it? Well, yes and no.

I'm not going to analyze every little detail. Nope. We've seen enough of that. Rather, I'll just say what I did and didn't like and a bit about why... like this:

The Yay!

1) The new heroes. Poe, Rey and Finn. They are great.

I really liked Poe for the relatively brief amount of time he was actually in the movie, but I also like my morally infallible heroes. Poe is also the embodiment of everyone who ever played X-Wing. He's a good man, an ace pilot and while I really wonder what role he'll really play in the overall saga, I thought he was fine. He's the prototypical character I tend to like, so I obviously gravitated towards him.

Finn was the embodiment of so much rolled into one great character. I personally liked the idea of a defecting Stormtrooper because many of the Expanded Universe characters were defecting Imperials. It makes sense and it's cool to see the First Order's grip isn't as tight as they believe. I thought my friend Jamal Igle did a really nice job explaining why he loved Finn, so I'll just leave that here: http://thenerdsofcolor.org/2015/12/23/for-the-love-of-fn-2187-why-finn-is-one-of-the-best-new-characters-in-star-wars/

I love Rey. I'm not going to waste time on the Mary Sue nonsense. What a stupid argument. Rey is the quintessential Star Wars character. She's BOTH Episode IV Luke and Obi-Wan rolled into one, so I totally understand the fan theories. "She's good at everything." What's your point? That's half of what made her so endearing. She was a great character and portrayed perfectly by Daisy Ridley. I liked everything about her and I thought her resourcefulness was refreshing.

2) BB-8. I'll be the first to admit, this little droid was a lot of fun. It's that simple.

3) The visuals. J.J. Abrams proved one thing with Star Trek... the guy can do space. Visually, the film is stunning. Absolutely stunning. The special effects look great and yes, felt like Star Wars.

4) Jakku. I really liked Jakku. The visuals of it, the characters (especially Unkar Plutt, the scrap merchant played by Simon Pegg). It really felt like a place that had been ravaged and left to deal with the consequences of that Battle between the Empire and Rebellion.

5) The Force stuff. The whole Jedi thing was never why I really loved Star Wars. I loved Star Wars because of the vision and expansiveness of the universe. I always liked the bounty hunters, smugglers and the real scrappy "real life" characters. That more than any other reason is why I'm really looking forward to Rogue One. But the way the Force was handled in this film - especially with Rey and the "awakening" was really neat. The lightsaber battle was great.

6) The final scene. Just wow. Great storytelling, great visuals, great acting. That final scene is really something else.

7) The mystery and questions surrounding well... everything... even the plot holes.

8) Han the character... see #1 in "Meh"

The Meh:

1) Boy does it pain me to say this... Han Solo. Look, Harrison Ford is hands down my favorite actor of all-time and this isn't a critique on his second most iconic character (Indy is more iconic). He was perfect in every way, he slipped right back into the role he notoriously hates like it was 1977 all over again and I loved it. But Han's story, and where Han has been over the past 30 years is just downright depressing. The Force has literally destroyed his life. Han is a shell of what he once was. His marriage has fallen apart. His son has turned to the dark side. He lost his ship (though conveniently finds it for the movie). You know, that irked me the most about Han.. the prototypical space cowboy... the rogue.. the swagger... the suave... lost his ship. YEARS before this movie takes place. 

2) The First Order. So is this a cult? It's not the Empire...  they have the look but they didn't have the feel of the Empire to me. If they were really trying to rebuild the Empire and Imperial rule, we should have at least seen them conquer a planet or two, rather than just destroying one.

3) General Hux. Someone has serious Tarkin-envy. Or is it Thrawn-envy?

4) Leia, C-3P0 and R2-D2. "Meh." 

Between Meh and Nope:

1) Kylo Ren. I'm more indifferent to him than anything. He was almost too petulant. Comic writer extraordinaire Gail Simone was fascinated by him, and it seems people like him or hate him. But Gail said his mentality was basically that of a school shooter. That is a VERY good assessment for sure, but Kylo just didn't resonate with me. Maybe he will as he builds a little more conviction in the upcoming films, but he just didn't seem real imposing. I know that's part of the story, but at the same time it just didn't work for me. I did like how he was a little more "loose" than Vader. He made jokes, he was very "matter of fact" about things... so I thought that worked in his favor.

2) Snoke. Awful name aside... is he Darth Plagueis? That's really the only way I see this going. Which is interesting, but I didn't get the same sense of fear and general evil I got from Palpatine.

The Nope:

1) Han's death, or more specifically the way he died. Nope. Nope. Nope. I hated it. It was pathetic and it felt forced. Had he set off the detonator before falling into the abyss... then yeah, sure. Han deserved to go out in a blaze of glory, even as his death came at the hands of his estranged son. Look, I knew Han was going to die. That's the ONLY reason Harrison Ford agreed to do this movie. Ford was getting what he always wanted and could finally be rid of the character he hates. But Han's death means NOTHING. When Obi-Wan died, he "became more powerful than you could ever imagine." A Force Ghost... guiding Luke to Yoda, keeping Luke on the light side. Obi-Wan's death was meaningful. You can argue the "but Kylo Ren needed to do it, yadda yadda," no he didn't. He killed his dad in cold-blood, not because he needed to be "set free." That will be the confrontation with Luke. If you really read into it, and the relationship with Kylo and Rey... Kylo Ren wasn't abandoned by Han, he was abandoned by Luke, likely for Rey. 

2) Captain Phasma. Great job, marketing team. Seriously, she was completely inconsequential. Still, what a great look.

3) The rehashing of Episode IV. Yes, okay; Ring theory. Yes, okay; the originals borrowed stuff too. The Force Awakens borrows so much from A New Hope that after a while it's off-putting. The entire thing starts to feel uninspired. So many of the story beats are redone that everything feels almost TOO familiar. I made a joke calling this movie "Star Wars: Into Darkness" because yes, it borrows heavily and twists predictably... which leads to...

5) The overall plot. There are some plotholes in this movie. Some of them big enough to drive a truck through. It's choppy  in a lot of places and there are a TON of head scratchers (Oh! Poe, you're alive! How perfect!). But more than anything the rehash of Episode IV... and you know "let's build a BIGGER Death Star, with a very specific weakness, that can be destroyed by combining the way the first two Death Stars were destroyed." The Supreme Leader ain't wise. 

6) The fan service and nostalgia. A little bit here and there is fine... but there was almost too much here, so much so that it was distracting. But it's almost brilliant that the film plays on the viewer's nostalgia so much that you don't see the faults because it "feels like Star Wars" or "it's more Star Wars than the prequels."

7) The sense of failure. When Return of the Jedi ends, you feel satisfied. The journey complete, Darth Vader redeemed, the Empire crushed. The Force Awakens takes all of that and rubs it in a giant pile of feces. The war has never ended. Han failed at life, Luke failed at being a Jedi master... I mean I hope Episode VIII shows Cloud City evolve from mining colony to Fhloston Paradise so at least Lando enjoyed the victory. But holy crap, the galaxy might have been better off with the Empire. The heroes of the original trilogy are essentially massive failures and there's just an overall sense of sadness. This article actually does a really great job and echoes many of my feelings: https://medium.com/cinenation-show/star-wars-the-force-awakens-dd9fd641f731#.8p8q2nusa

8) Experience over Film. This is a bit odd, so I'll try to explain. I saw The Force Awakens in a relatively empty theater (believe it or not). This is how I prefer to watch movies, because I want to take in the story, I want to take in the characters. I want the FILM. When you're in a packed theater of people equally anticipating the same thing, your opinion of something is going to be swayed by people cheering uncontrollably the moment they see the "Lucasfilm" logo. It was abundantly clear, oh, around the time of #ForceFriday, that The Force Awakens was not going to be a "film." This was going to be an experience, and frankly, the "Star Wars Experience" outweighs "Star Wars the film" and the critical reviews back up that claim. Also, the insane fervor over spoilers also supports that claim, no one cared about their movie being spoiled, they cared about their "experience" being spoiled. THIS is why the movie is shattering box office records... because of the experience that people want to feel again and again.

So overall: I liked The Force Awakens. I didn't love it. Best movie of the year? No. Not even close. (That title belongs to Mad Max: Fury Road which sits comfortably in my Top 5 favorite films of all-time).

I went in feeling indifferent about Star Wars, and left feeling slightly less indifferent mostly because of the potential of the next stories. Individually as a film, it's okay. Setting up the larger saga with the new characters, it's great in that it offers plenty to debate. The best thing to come of it all for me, I recently bought the entire X-Wing collection from GOG.com... now THOSE games are PURE Star Wars. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in what's to come, or that I didn't like the movie. But it terms of full-fledged 7th grade-like Star Wars love? I think that ship has sailed.

I said it was about a 7/10. And yes, that's where I stand. It's a fun movie, it's enjoyable and it does feel like Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back or even A New Hope it is not. But for a lot of people, that's enough and that's awesome, and I love that so many of my friends that LOVE Star Wars were so happy with the final product. But for some like me (and I do love Star Wars overall), it lacked (or used too much of) the same magic that inspired the originals.

My fan theories: 

(The only one that matters:) Rey is Luke's daughter. I think the Kenobi theory is neat, but the way she and Leia are with each other, the way she and Luke look at each other, the vision with the lightsaber. But there are also striking parallels between Kylo Ren and Rey with themes of abandonment and identity that suggest they are indeed related.

Snoke is Darth Plagueis. There's really no other explanation for him.

My favorite fan theory: There is a theory I saw floating around on reddit (I think) that suggested that Snoke was preparing Kylo Ren as a vessel to being back Darth Revan. If you don't know who or what Darth Revan is go here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Revan. Yes, he's considered part of the "Legends" but yes, Disney has not told BioWare whether or not Knights of the Old Republic is canon or not.  (I think the Knights of Ren are Revan worshippers).

Oh, and one last thing. Stop with the "please make Poe and Finn lovers" stuff. To me, the point of their friendship wasn't any potential romance, but the fact that out there in the larger galaxy, there are no color lines. People come together to achieve a common goal with mutual respect and the need to rely on one another.

I'm sick of Star Wars

I'm sick of Star Wars. Sick of it.

Look, I'm glad it's coming back. I'm glad people are excited, I love seeing the excitement on my good friend and co-worker James Wortman's face whenever something Star Wars comes up. It's fun, it's great.

Star Wars was never religion to me. I never had what I can only equate what some people have to being a religious experience because of Star Wars. I was really into it at one point. Around the time of the last major push, right before the Special Editions. I was also really into Star Trek at one point. Collected the toys, played the games... all that stuff.

Looking back, of the original three movies, only one of them is really exceptional. Empire Strikes Back is the perfect sequel on top of being a great film. A New Hope is fun, but it's heavily flawed and much of what has been built around it actually convolutes the plot quite a bit. Return of the Jedi is fun, The Ewoks never bothered me and it's a satisfying conclusion to that original trilogy. Though really, Han and Chewie NOT flying the Falcon in the finale? C'mon.

Frankly, Shadows of the Empire remains my favorite Star Wars story and I absolutely loved how they created a cross-media project, the movie without a movie. Now as an adult, I look at what Lucasfilm pulled off with Shadows and it's just insanely brilliant. If there is one thing I hope remains canon in Disney's new universe, it's Shadows (it still has not been determined where it stands).

But here's the thing about Star Wars: The Force Awakens. This puppy has to deliver. It has to deliver big time. The rollout has been pretty good, the only major hiccup being the lackluster Star Wars: Battlefront - gorgeous game, real shallow, frustrating and repetitive. Oh and pay $60 for half a game and $50 for the rest! Ugh.

The marketing for the movie has been brilliant, I mean where the hell is Luke Skywalker?! The secrecy around the bigger plot moments has been pretty solid, I mean do we HAVE to watch Han and Chewie die? Are Rey and Kylo Ren the Solo twins from the expanded universe?! All these questions are neat, they help generate the excitement surrounding the movie. But it's not enough to totally rope me back in... yet.

What happened with me and Star Wars? The prequels happened, obviously. I'm not going to waste time bashing them or whatever. I can get past the tweaks to the Special Editions (Han shot first though), but I can't get past those prequels. They are just awful, awful movies. And I am proud to say I am a defender of about 85% of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I was fully ingrained in a lot of Star Wars stuff... I  did religiously play the games - Kyle Katarn is my homeboy and I was an ace X-Wing/Tie Fighter pilot. And honestly, I  generally enjoyed most of what came out around those movies... The original Star Wars Battlefronts, Bounty Hunter, Republic Commando, etc. Yes, the prequels had their bright spots - Darth Freakin' Maul, Sam Jackson Jedi, Yoda fighting... all that was cool. But overall, my Star Wars fandom died with those movies. I never really got into the Clone Wars cartoon, mostly because it reeked of prequels. 

One of the things I honestly didn't like about the prequels and Star Wars in the early '00s was how everything starting skewing Jedi. I get it, it's the major element of the universe, the movies are about the Skywalkers... but I always gravitated to Han Solo, Dash Rendar, Boba Fett and pre-Jedi Kyle Katarn. I loved the idea that there was more out there than just The Force and the prequels really moved away from that. It does look like some of that is being brought back.

Since the awakening (get it?), I've been really enjoying the new canon via the comics from Marvel. They are some great books all around. I've only bought two figures - a Stormtrooper because I think the new armor is real sleek, and Captain Phasma because she just looks bad ass. I got Battlefront... mostly disappointed with it... but I'm not alone.  I've been playing the mobile games on and off too, (Uprising and Galaxy of Heroes) they are neat. I also have bought all 3 hardcovers of the original Marvel comics... because they are great adaptations and the remastered coloring looks great.

So I'm kind of on the fringe. Maybe I just don't want to be disappointed. Who knows. Maybe the movie will blow me away and throw me back into the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon. Maybe I'll just be indifferent. 

Either way, I know James Wortman will be the happiest boy.

Hello from the other side....

Been doing a great many things... too many things. More to come in subsequent posts.

Saving Comics - or - how to REALLY expand readership and increase sales

Okay. Let me preface this. Because this is the Internet and comments, opinions etc., can be misinterpreted. I am a comic creator (obviously), I'm also an avid comic reader and I've been a part-time retailer for almost 15 years. I've seen a lot and experienced a lot when it comes to the business and economics of comics. Now, let me also make abundantly clear - I am 150% for diversity and representation in both characters and creators, I am 150% for pushing the envelope editorially and trying new ideas - I want great stories for my money.   In order for comics to sustain their viability, not only do buying habits have to remain consistent with seasoned readers, but NEW readers have to be brought into stores. And I'm not talking about just buying the latest Funko Pop or media-covered title - I'm talking people with a genuine interest to read comics.

Fact is, for the massive popularity the movies, TV and other media have brought these characters, sales are sluggish. You can gussy that statement up all you want - but compared to the 60s, 70s, and even the 90s, comic sales aren't that great. Toys, collectibles, apparel and accessories are great but comics needs readers.

Fandom is big these days, it's also big money. There are major cons every weekend, cosplay is huge, there is an insane variety of collectibles, social media erupts (regularly) about comics and comic-related news... but where are the NEW non-Star Wars related sales and readers? How many of those Star Wars readers are new readers? The new Star Wars books are all the new, official canon but sales doesn't crack more than 205,000? Really?

Is this a marketing problem on behalf of the publishers? I don't know. A few weeks ago at a con, I was floored but the amount of attendees that said "I don't read comics" or "I don't read comics anymore." This was a wide-range of attendee as well, including a few in full comic character cosplay.

Marvel and DC are the gateways to other comics and publishers, so I'm focusing on them.

So what's the issue? Well, aside from the obvious - the movies, TV and video games need to do a better job promoting comic stores and comic books - I think there is a way to maintain the seasoned, regular readers while reaching out to new readers and taking risks. 

Speaking of taking risks, no one takes greater risks when it comes to comics than the retailers. Marvel and DC's near-constant reboots aren't risks. But retailers having to constantly order these "new, flashy books with tons of media coverage" is a HUGE risk. Older readers will get to the point where they will just drop a title outright, new readers will come for issue 1, maybe issue 2 but issue 3 is a crapshoot.

Basically, I believe that Marvel and DC especially, should have 3 separate lines of books. Yes, I've been one to call for slate-cleaning reboots every 25-30 years, but this is a newer idea that I'm behind.

The first line should be the all-ages kid-friendly stuff. This includes books based on cartoons, and books that are just generally aimed at kids - light-hearted plots and fun action. That's pretty simple. There are also examples like the Flash and Arrow comics, I love the TV shows and the universe that's been created, so I absolutely LOVE having comics set in those universes. THAT'S a no-brainer.

The second line should be exactly what DC and Marvel are doing with DCYou and "All-New, All-Different". Push the established norms. Diversify characters and creators, make stories and characters accessible to readers yearning for these things. It's just good business sense. Don't do it because it's "trendy" or because it gives you the greatest media coverage, do it because there are great stories to tell from the widest range of voices and styles.

The third line is what I call the "bottom line." The third line is something that comics SORELY needs. Look, when someone who doesn't normally read comics goes to see The Avengers or Ant-Man or the latest movie, there's a chance they may head to a comic store or a bookstore where graphic novels are sold. So you want an Avengers book with the characters you just saw in the movies? Sure, you can dig through back issues, but where do you start? It's much easier, and much more sensical for a line of books that feature the classic interpretations of the characters in new stories and settings - or even re-imagined versions of classic stories. The kicker? These issues would be self-contained or no more than 3 issue arcs. Classic interpretations.

My reasoning for this third line is two-fold. 1) It gives older readers exactly what they ask for - "just Superman being Superman," if you will. 2) It gives new readers easy access points to stories with zero baggage just a basic understanding of who the characters are. It's much easier to make a sale on a book like this to a brand new reader. When "Age of Ultron" hit theaters, Marvel put out "Avengers: Operation Hydra." It was a one-shot featuring the movie team in action. It was that simple and I thought it was BRILLIANT. If someone comes into the store and says "do you have any Avengers?" and you ask "do you read the current books?" and their answer is "no", this one-shot is a no-brainer. "Okay, well check this book out, it features the Avengers in action and you don't need a flow chart or a degree in continuity to follow it."

These types of books exist - "Adventures of Superman", "Sensation Comics" and "Legends of the Dark Knight" are great examples. And yes, some mainline books like Batgirl, Green Arrow, SHIELD and Moon Knight don't really need this treatment because they don't necessarily have to follow editorial mandates are certain continuities. Bryan Hitch's "JLA" has the right idea. I like the way that book is handled - free from continuity, it's basically "here's a Justice League story." I hope you get the idea.

Some indy creators get it. Since we primarily sell at cons or directly, we're much more inclined to do trades, or create characters and feature them in one and done stories (usually with an over-reaching plot), because our release schedules are constantly variable.

Don't get me wrong, I really dig a lot of the DCYou continuity, but I think it'd be wise to have a line of books that doesn't adhere to these storylines. One and done adventures that are gateways for new readers looking for the most basic interpretations of classic characters.

This might satisfy older readers complaining about change and how "books aren't for them anymore." From a purely business standpoint, you can't alienate eager and new readers looking for diverse voices and representation, but from a retail standpoint, you can't alienate the readers who have been showing up for 10-20 years. It doesn't have to be a double-edged sword. Comics are for everyone and publishers CAN make something for everyone.

Look at the upcoming Spider-Man books. One the one hand, you've got the new direction for "Amazing Spider-Man." It's very different. But on that same coin you have "Spidey" which I liken to an Archie-styled reboot for Spider-Man. Marvel is taking webhead back to high school in "classic and iconic" fashion. This is has been done before sure, but right now? It's the perfect jumping point for new readers just looking for classic Spider-Man.

I really think Marvel and DC can do more to satisfy the needs of everyone. Seriously. We're talking the widest range of available stories to satisfy, INTRODUCE and KEEP the widest range of readers and buyers.

Fall convention schedule (so far)

I haven't updated the blog here as much as I'd like to, but for a good reason.

There's been this thing going on at my day job that I've had a pretty heavy involvement in, and it's been really neat.

That, and whatever free time I have is usually devoted to writing. I've completed the scripts first three chapters of The Atomic Thunderbolt - which I am really excited about - and I needed to start plotting out the second Patriot-1 book a little bit.

Anyways, I did want to drop a quick update with my Fall Convention Schedule as it stands thus far.

The fun begins on September 19 and 20 at the XL Center in Hartford. I'll be in Artist's Alley for the Hartford Comic Con. I'm excited, there's a great guest list so hopefully it should be a fun show.

The weekend after that - September 25-27, is Baltimore Comic Con. By far my favorite con. It's HEAVILY comics focused and it's just generally a good show.

After that, there's a bit of a break, because I'd like to stay married, but then it's the biggest comic con on the year (yes, it is bigger than San Diego) - New York Comic Con from October 8-11, 2015.

I have a love/hate relationship with NYCC - but I'm excited for this year's show.

After that, it's up in the air. There is the Albany Comic Con on October 9 - it's probably the best small show on the East Coast, I haven't done it in years, but I'm thinking about it.

I'm also thinking about Rhode Island in November, ChaseCon (A small and new show in Saratoga in October), and a couple others in November and December. But we'll see.

The reality of doing cons is cost. Sometimes I can get a discounted table, but I haven't done anything for any major publishers, so it's really difficult to the weight benefit-cost analysis. Most of the time I will do shows that are driving distance only. Baltimore is an exception because I love that show, but having to drop $150-$300 a night on a hotel, ON TOP of table costs just isn't always feasible. It's an added bonus if I can do a show and be home at night in time to put my kids to bed.