Wide Release Film: May 4. 2012

I’m pretty sure Superman’s x-ray vision was some conservative’s idea at getting a peak at Margot Kidder’s unmentionables.

Ms Kidder was attractive in an oddball kind of way. Just the kind of girl I had crushes on.

Is it bad that I actually want to pursue this tangent? Superman is, well, ubermensch and Batman is, well, rich, but Captain America is, well, Captain America and Iron Man is, well, rich….

—DiB

Thanks to this storyline, Marvel pretty much self identified the political leanings of all its characters. Iron Man leading the conservatives and Captain America leading the liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Civil_War

In the 60s and early 70s Marvel comics were being written by older guys, WW2 and Korea veterans. Then in the early 70s younger writers arrived and changed Marvel’s politics a little. Lik,e that 70s story arc that had Nixon (A guy that looked a lot like Nixon anyway) thawing out of hibernation the 50s Captain America (Who had been created by McCarthy to fight commies i(Or at least a guy who looked a lot like him) to fight internal enemies and ends up fighting the REAL 1940s-1960s ….

Well I mean, that’s going to happen with serial storytelling that continues outputting over generations, things are going to change. Batman used to be a silly PI serial and then Frank Miller comes along, do we read the ‘politics’ of Batman from the 50s or 80s?

—PolarisDiB

@Matt

They could have done that, but they needed a star to play Fury in order for the lead-in wraparound to work, which means they had to pay star money,…

Yeah, but what about a cameo?

Man, those Nick Fury issues with Scorpio and the Zodiac (I thought they were so cool) really takes me back. I didn’t realize Steranko was the artist. Somehow I thought it was Kirby—although he was doing everything back then.

And, no, I did not see or even know of the Hasselhoff Nick Fury. That’s for putting that lovely image in my head. ;)

As for Brubaker, I don’t know if he’d be well-suited for Nick Fury. Brubaker is more “street” and darker, and I’m not sure that would be a good fit.

Brad said, In the movie. he’s kind of like M in a James Bond film.

OK, that sounds good. (I need to see this movie before I hear something I don’t want to.)

@Francisco

In grade school the kids who were into Marvel were slightly maladjusted. Not bad kids, but troubled. Made me think that Marvel design those comiocs with that audience in mind.

I was always a Marvel guy—mainly for superficial reasons. (The marvel characters had cooler powers and costumes, imo.)

Ms Kidder was attractive in an oddball kind of way

I’d take off the “oddball” part. She was hot.

There can be a political reading of Batman through the decades-
In the 30s he fought gangsters but also slumlords kind of New Deal
!n the 40s Axis bad guys – that works both lefty and patriotic…
In the 50s Batman went surreal/apolitical Batmitte, etc,
In the 60s tI was self referential post mdern kind of weird so I guess that may be considered somewhat lefty…
In the 70s he went into a law and order meaner/thougher thing after he went solo again, so that may be considered Right wing. Also there may be another subtext there but I dont want to open that can of worms here…..

“Funny, I thought just the opposite, Green Arrow and Green Lantern roaming the US as hippys VS Daredevil and Spiderman beating the crap out of college demostrators”

The Green Lantern books were, um, “fair and balanced” because the Lantern was very paramilitary/law and order, while the Green Arrow was basically a left wing/countercultural Batman. Marvel was actually far more socially and politically conscious than DC in the 60s. There were obvious differences in the approaches in characterization. Not to mention that DC never had artists like Steranko et al.

“Superman is, well, ubermensch and Batman is, well, rich, but Captain America is, well, Captain America and Iron Man is, well, rich….”

The difference between Superman is the others is that Superman doesn’t really have enough human weaknesses to be an interesting character over a sustained series of comics or films, and the anachronistic values he represents are pretty much swept under the rug. Whereas, with Capt. America, the whole frozen in ice thing has been consciously used as a way to set traditional American values against contemporary global capitalist values (which is where Iron Man comes in).

This discussion warrants a separate thread, methinks (e.g., The Politics of Superhero Movies).

“In the 60s and early 70s Marvel comics were being written by older guys, WW2 and Korea veterans.”

Francisco, Francisco, Francisco . . . Marvel was enormously popular on college campuses in the ‘60s—DC wasn’t—so they weren’t nearly as old-mannish as you’re making them sound. Roy Thomas, in his mid-twenties at the time, took over a significant share of the writing for Marvel from Stan Lee in the mid-‘60s. At the time Thomas and other younger writers started writing for Marvel, Julius Schwartz had been at DC (and its predecessor All-American Comics) since 1944, Robert Kanigher had been there since ’45, Carmine Infantino had been there since ’47, DC didn’t really get “realistic” until the early ’70s.

“The difference between Superman is the others is that Superman doesn’t really have enough human weaknesses to be an interesting character over a sustained series of comics or films, and the anachronistic values he represents are pretty much swept under the rug.”

exactly, and i think that is part of the reason it’s near impossible to update Superman for the modern age.

“Ms Kidder was attractive in an oddball kind of way. Just the kind of girl I had crushes on.”

She was not conventionally beautiful, but she was attractive, plus she had a killer body. That’s enough right? ;_)

They should never try to modernize Superman. Far from being a problem, his “boy scout-ness” is key to the character. It makes him even more alien to the cynical world he’s protecting and provides a dramatic character contrast between him, his villains and even the more worldly Lois Lane. This will be essential if they ever get a Justice League film together to contrast him with Batman. We need a cool Superman, like we need a feminist James Bond.

Do you guys think I would like The Avengers? I don’t generally enjoy blockbuster superhero films but I did like Iron Man and both Hellboy movies.

I’m a software developer so everybody at work keeps asking if I’ve seen it yet.

If you like quality action films with well defined characters, sharp humor, memorable dialogue and an old-fashioned good time popcorn movie sensibility, you will like The Avengers.

“Far from being a problem, his “boy scout-ness” is key to the character. It makes him even more alien to the cynical world he’s protecting and provides a dramatic character contrast between him, his villains and even the more worldly Lois Lane.”

Yes, in theory, i guess it could work, but the problem is that unless Superman turns to the dark side or something, it will still always be corny, unless you make the outside world appear super evil by comparison.

have not seen avengers and likely wont but I heard that the Shawarma scene is helping middle eastern eateries attract customers. I also heard that Capt America does not partake is that because of nationalistic reasons?

Oy.

The scene you’re referring to is a simple visual gag. Iron Man sez ’Let’s get shawarma… I’ve never had shawarma…’ at the end of the final battle and we watch all the loose ends get tied up from there, and then the credits roll. At the end of the credits, it cuts to the fatigued, bedraggled superheroes sitting over their shawarma — and only Stark is eating while Thor is picking through some fries, and the shot is protracted, nothing happens for several moments.

What is visually ‘told’ in this gag (here I am explaining a joke, which is the best way to make it not feel funny, fer Chrissakes) is that they are wiped out and don’t have much to say to each other, and it also winks at the idea of the damage done to local businesses in the city during the carnage of the epic battle scene because there is the shop owner in background cleaning up broken glass and other debris.

Off hand, if you guys have never had shawarma, it’s pretty tasty. It’s a lot like gyros. If the scene is helping eateries attract customers, power to it. Capt America not partaking doesn’t make a lick of sense because half the jokes about him in this self-same movie are how he doesn’t know what the world’s been up to recently, so it’s not like he’d have any particular opinion about Middle Easterners. It’s just a type of fast food in the end anyway.

—PolarisDiB

When a big budget movie gets good reviews it doesn’t affect my decision, I’m either already sold on it or not. I guess Ill see it eventually.

Thanks Dennis.

lol Polaris about the Shawarma.

Very interesting, however I’m not sure about Capt America and Middle East, It’s not like American’s were in love with the MIddle-East the time he was around either, so it would make sense that he’d feel hesitant about trying their food, especially with his attitude. Also, they probably filled him in on certain events by that point, they must have had a heated discussion about it as a group (similar to the earlier political/power argument they had), hence the awkward silence…

For me the way to make Superman more interesting would be to make his moral decisions less clear cut.

There are some evil supervillains trying to kill innocent people. Protect the innocent people, easy.

I’ll use an example from my webcomic not for vanity but because it’s the example I thought of the most quickly.

The backstory: Hundreds of years ago there was a race called the sether who started to evolve shapeshifting abilities. So, when another alien race found this out, they decided to kidnap a lot of them, kill the rest, then eugenically evolve them to be better shapeshifters, also with tremendous strength and agility and a narcotic compulsion to kill people. Hundreds of years later, right when this eugenics experiment was finished, most of them were killed and six escaped.

These six are being chased by people who want to force them to become assassins. They genuinely want to live peacefully and resist their genetic compulsion to kill, but they also want to breed and build their population back up into the millions.

What does Superman do? Protect the sether because they are innocent victims who want to live peacefully, or kill them because having millions of super-assassins with a genetic compulsion to kill people would be a disaster?

Superman never has to face genuine ethical dilemmas, because in his world right and wrong is clear cut. That’s my issue with comic book worlds in general. It’s too obvious what is morally right.

“When a big budget movie gets good reviews it doesn’t affect my decision, I’m either already sold on it or not. I guess Ill see it eventually.”

To me this is the best approach for mainstream movies — you’re either into it or you’re not.

“Also, they probably filled him in on certain events by that point, they must have had a heated discussion about it as a group (similar to the earlier political/power argument they had), hence the awkward silence…”

You’re filling in scenes and dialog that isn’t there.

Using what we have from the scenes that are available, they’re just worn out and haven’t much to talk about to each other.

I know that’s boring. I’d say the speculation is fun, writing in stories to that shot and so on, and it’s not like its there to not have us talk about it, I’m just a little hesitant to go down the ‘what does Cap’n think of the Mooooslums?’ road until, you know, it’s actually portrayed in one of the flicks.

—PolarisDiB

>>What does Superman do?<<

Throughout every interation of Superman throughout the decades, it has been established that he will not kill. He actually has faced these types of dilemas in the comic books, but his moral code is absolute. The logic being that since his powers are almost unlimited, he cannot cross certain lines without becoming what he’s fighting.

>>That’s my issue with comic book worlds in general. It’s too obvious what is morally right.<<

Meanwhile other superheroes, particularly Batman, have more flexible moral codes and continuously debate them.

>>I also heard that Capt America does not partake is that because of nationalistic reasons?<<

I’m all for creative interpretations, but this is just silly. There’s nothing in Captain America’s backstory to indicate that he’s jingoistic or even political. The man’s a soldier. I doubt our soldiers serving in the Middle East now are boycotting the local cuisine.

““When a big budget movie gets good reviews it doesn’t affect my decision, I’m either already sold on it or not. I guess Ill see it eventually.”

“To me this is the best approach for mainstream movies — you’re either into it or you’re not.”

That’s interesting. I usually take the opposite approach. A lot of mainstream films don’t interest me (because they think they’re going to be crap) but if they get overwhelming positive response from critics, I might be more tempted to at least see what all the fuss is about. In other words, I’ll use the reviews to tell me, “hey, this is better than most crap out there!” (Of course, this is not foolproof – Hunger Games and The Town being too examples).

One recent example was Think Like a Man. It didn’t look like my kind of movie at all but after hearing some friends who enjoyed it and reading some above average reviews, I thought I’d give it a chance. And while it’s nothing ground-breaking, it was a lot better than I initially thought.

It’s usually the small indies and foreign films that I don’t pay as much attention to the reviews (although sometimes I definitely do – for instance I was going to see Elles but didn’t after reading the terrible reviews) because either I’m interested or I’m not. Downloading Nancy got 0% on RT Top Critics and yet I really like that film.

“I’m all for creative interpretations, but this is just silly. There’s nothing in Captain America’s backstory to indicate that he’s jingoistic or even political.”

someone named Capt America is likely a bit nationistic, probably listens to Lee Greenwood (:

“Marvel was enormously popular on college campuses in the ‘60s—DC wasn’t”
My sisters and their hippy counterculture friends read DC and discussed them. Extremely popular was the Wonder Woman without superpowers Zen era. . The ones who had Marvel books did not read them ,just looked at the pictures (Wink).

Captain America they called “Capitalist America”
But then i grew up in Latin America. In the 60s.

“Roy Thomas, in his mid-twenties at the time, took over a significant share of the writing for Marvel from Stan Lee in the mid-‘60s.”

Stan Lee “WRITING” ?

GROTH; When did you meet Stan Lee for the first time?

KIRBY: I met Stan Lee when I first went to work for Marvel. He was a little boy. When Joe and I were doing Captain America. He was about 13 years old. He’s about five years younger than me.

GROTH: Did you keep in touch with him at all?

KIRBY: No, I thought Stan Lee was a bother.

GROTH: [Laughter.]

KIRBY: I did!

GROTH: What do you mean by “bother”?

KIRBY: You know he was the kind of kid that liked to fool around — open and close doors on you. Yeah. In fact, once I told Joe to throw him out of the room.

GROTH; Because he was a pest?

KIRBY: Yes, he was a pest. Stan Lee was a pest. He liked to irk people and it was one thing I couldn’t take.

GROTH: Hasn’t changed a bit, huh?

KIRBY: He hasn’t changed a bit. I couldn’t do anything about Stan Lee because he was the publisher’s cousin. He ran back and forth around New York doing things that he was told to do. He would slam doors and come up to you and look over your shoulder and annoy you in a lot of ways. Joe would probably elaborate on it.

GROTH: When you went to Marvel in ’58 and ’59, Stan was obviously there.

KIRBY: Yes, and he was the same way.

GROTH: And you two collaborated on all the monster stories?

KIRBY: Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything! I’ve never seen Stan Lee write anything. I used to write the stories just like I always did.

GROTH: On all the monster stories it says “Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.” What did he do to warrant his name being on them?

KIRBY: Nothing! OK?

GROTH: Did he dialogue them?

KIRBY: No, I dialogued them. If Stan Lee ever got a thing dialogued, he would get it from someone working in the office. I would write out the whole story on the back of every page. I would write the dialogue on the back or a description of what was going on. Then Stan Lee would hand them to some guy and he would write in the dialogue. In this way Stan Lee made more pay than he did as an editor. This is the way Stan Lee became the writer. Besides collecting the editor’s pay, he collected writer’s pay. I’m not saying Stan Lee had a bad business head on. I think he took advantage of whoever was working for him.

1989
http://www.tcj.com/jack-kirby-interview/

^Jeez, sound like Lennon talking about Mccartney.

“My sisters and their hippy counterculture friends read DC and discussed them”

Sure, I’m sure there where those among the counterculture who read DC, but if you read any reputable history of the industry, Marvel was winning that demographic in the 60s, even though Superman, and later Batman titles were dominating total circulation (it wasn’t until 1969 that a Marvel title even appeared in the top 10).

lol Polaris i was joking, they would never go there in these kinda movies. The one time i have seen recently an American film talk about the Middle East seriously, about the Israel-Palestine conflict was in “Margaret”.
Even in that, it showed bias towards Israel by not only what the characters said but making the the Anti-Zionist french liberal (played by Jean Reno) die randomly as some sort of smug joke just moments after talking about his stance to someone (maybe a satirical attempt to display the inherent fascism in public discourse when it comes to certain issues, but highly unlikely!).

So yea, i don’t think a big budget, mainstream comic book movie would really go there…

I find reviews are far more telling for mainstream films than for nichey films. Mainstream films that get good reviews tend to be good, provided you can check your expectations for depth.

Throughout every interation of Superman throughout the decades, it has been established that he will not kill. He actually has faced these types of dilemas in the comic books, but his moral code is absolute. The logic being that since his powers are almost unlimited, he cannot cross certain lines without becoming what he’s fighting.

So, he protects the sethers. What would be interesting then is maybe a few years down the line, a powerful government starts attacking the sethers out of fear for what they might become, and the sethers start making threats and taking hostages if they do not stop these attacks. Superman makes a unilateral moral decision, and then later has to face the consequences of that decision. That’s what would interest me.