Monthly Marvel Musings: How to (finally) get Fantastic Four right

This month I had intended to write a piece about the pointless ‘rivalry’ between Marvel and DC movies, but given the failure of ‘Fantastic Four’, and the fallout around it, I wanted to reflect on whether there is a future for these characters on screen.  In a nutshell, I am pleased to say that – despite everything – there is.

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Although many people have gleefully laid in to the new ‘Fantastic Four’ movie with a glee bordering on the macabre, I’ve got to admit the film’s failure has made me sad.  I saw the film a second time last week (I had promised to take my son), and as I began to enjoy parts of the first half of the film (especially the traumatic depiction of the accident that gives the team their powers), I actually found it saddening at the same time.  There was clearly an attempt to do something interesting and different with this superhero comic adaptation – but for various reasons it failed.  There’s mud-slinging going on from both sides, but ultimately it comes down to two things: Fox didn’t really want to make the film Josh Trank wanted to make – and the film was clearly rushed in to production to beat the deadline for the rights expiring, but before the script and plot had been properly settled upon.  This will be a film that people will take great pleasure in analysing the troubled production and fall out for many years to come – even though Fox claim they want to move forward with a sequel, it is likely they will consider the negative publicity, and box office failure of this film, to have tarnished the franchise too much.

Seems like everyone's got it in for the Fantastic Four lately...

It may be that, in months to come, Fox will sit down with Marvel Studios to discuss the rights to Fantastic Four.  If this happens it will be a good thing for comic book fans – despite the previous failed attempts to portray these characters correctly on the big screen, there is arguably still a way to get them right.  And that especially goes for Doctor Doom, the greatest Marvel villain, who Marvel Studios could incorporate in to some epic story lines and future movies.  If Marvel and Fox do start these discussions, how can a future movie based on Fantastic Four succeed where the previous ones failed?  Here are some of my ideas…

(Partly) set it in the era they were created – the 1960’s

It’s a well-known fact that over 10 years ago ‘Ant-Man’ director Peyton Reed was developing a '60's set Fantastic Four movie, which Fox abandoned.  It’s one of those great cinematic ‘What-Ifs?’, but it’s easy to imagine that that version would have been better than the films which were eventually made.  But I think this is a good starting point for any future FF movie – ‘Captain America The First Avenger’ and ‘X-Men First Class’ demonstrated that comic adaptations, set in the era they were first created, can work very well.  In the dream scenario that Marvel Studios get to work FF back in to the MCU, you could depict the forming of the team and them gaining their powers during that era – matching the same pulpy, retro Sci-Fi tone that was an element of the first Captain America film.  However, I say ‘partly’ because, well we’ve seen two origin stories for the team on film so far – the next version would be better to have the team already with their powers established, but show flash-backs to when they gained their powers (we've already had two version of their origin story on film).  This might make you question why, if they’ve been around since the '60's, have they not been mentioned or seen in the MCU before?  There’d be a very good reason for that…

Make this Marvel’s version of ‘Star Trek’

…this film would be an outer-space adventure, along the lines of Star Trek or the ‘Lost in Space’ series.  Although in the comics the FF are mainly earth-bound, many of their most famous and memorable stories have them encountering (and occasionally battling) various alien races and beings.  In fact several comic stories have them traversing across galaxies and dimensions, so why not their films?  This could tie back to their origin, and the ‘60’s setting: why not combine the classic origin story with the Ultimate version (which the current film takes its cues from), and have the team and Doctor Doom (more of which later) developing a new form of rocket that includes a very experimental form of drive which (unbeknownst to them) uses technology capable of crossing dimensions?  When the rocket is first tested there is an accident of some sort, which sends the team across space to an unknown galaxy – and giving them their powers as they cross alternative dimensions to get there.  

Several Fantastic Four stories take place in outer space, on alien worlds, or other dimensions - if you can't make them work 'on earth', why not set their stories in space then?

The film could then set up how the team are trying to make their way back to our galaxy, and earth, and encountering the aliens they’ve famously battled in the comics as they do so.  This approach would give Marvel Studios an opportunity to make a film in a genre they’ve not yet used (Kevin Feige is keen that each film is at least inspired by, or done in the style of, a different genre pic e.g. ‘The Winter Soldier’ = conspiracy thriller, ‘Ant-Man’ = heist movie) – the sort of Space-faring adventure that made ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Lost in Space’ so popular in their time.  This would give the comics fun tone, with its famous ‘family’ dynamic, a setting where it would feel more appropriate, and so (hopefully) work better.  Having them trekking (!) through space would reflect their classic team /family dynamic: Johnny Storm would be the pilot, Ben 'The Thing' Grimm the ship's engineer, Reed Richards the Chief science officer, and Sue Storm the vessel's chief medical officer.  You could feed them in to the MCU through a future Guardians of the Galaxy film (they could be introduced in a cameo or post-credits sting) before depicting their own adventure, which in turn could set up the coming of Galactus and Annihilus – surely worthy of being the antagonists of a future Avengers movie?  But that’s not the only villain you would be getting in to the MCU…

Doctor Doom could finally be portrayed right

Even if the current Fantastic Four reboot had been better, it still would have arguably failed in one important area: faithfully and effectively portraying Doctor Doom on screen.  As I mentioned in my review, the film portrayals need to stop trying to play down all the elements that make up the character, and fully embrace the near-operatic scope.  I would argue Doom could be introduced before the FF themselves, as a back-ground villain/threat, in the same way that Thanos has been used in the MCU so far.  Certainly, in the comics, he is the most powerful Marvel villain (he recently stood against inter-dimensional beings capable of destroying entire universes!) – but he has surprising nuances.  Whilst he is a totalitarian leader of his native Latveria (making a nice counter to Captain America and his espousing of democracy and freedom), under his rule the country and its people have prospered.  As well as being a scientific genius and strategic master, his background is marred by tragedy; in the comics there are a number of stories where he is trying to rescue his mother’s soul from hell and the devil himself.

A successful translation of Doctor Doom on screen should completely embrace the part where he is the ruler of Latveria

I think this can be reworked slightly to make Doom an amazing villain in the MCU.  Over the course of several films, the heroes could discover (or inadvertently discover) links between their films’ villains and Latveria.  Over time it becomes clear that Doom is behind these – but no one can act because he is hidden behind a diplomatic wall as ruler of Latveria, where he rarely leaves.  Eventually, someone discovers what Doom is trying to do – create a transport to cross dimensions.  He has been doing this because his father, almost 70 years ago, had been experimenting on the very same thing – and during one of the experiments Doom’s mother was sucked through to another dimension (a change to the comics that would feel plausible, but allowing potential crossover with Doctor Strange, as in the source material).  Ever since, Doom has made it his life’s work to perfect the technology and rescue his lost mother.

This is how he became involved with the Fantastic Four – he helped them to develop and build their rocket as a way of furthering his own experiments on the dimensional crossing technology.  Of course, he still hadn’t perfected this, resulting in the accident which banishes the Fantastic Four, and leaves him with the disfigurement requiring him to live his life in a suit of powered armour.  As his experiments continue, the Fantastic Four (who have been tracking Galactus as a way of finding their way back to Earth) and other MCU characters (e.g. Doctor Strange) realise he is drawing dangerous beings towards Earth – beings such as Galactus, the devourer of worlds.  Desperate to intervene, but unable to due to international political will, SHIELD sends a covert team to Latveria (Secret Avengers) to try and stop him – they fail and Doom retaliates by attacking New York and the UN.  Eventually Galactus reaches earth – and it takes the combined might of the Avengers and the newly returned Fantastic Four to defeat the cosmic being.  Another team of heroes eventually defeat Doom, but not before he has activated his technology – and brought the attention of other extra-dimensional beings (e.g. Annihilus), setting things up for the next phase of MCU movies.

Doom hasn't only taken on the Fantastic Four - he's possibly the most central of Marvel's villains.

Taking this approach would arguably give enough space to develop a portrayal of Doom that is respectful and faithful enough to the comics to work on screen.  Here you would have a Doom that is as powerful – intellectually, politically, and of course in terms of abilities – as he should be; but also nuanced and interesting enough to make him a great movie villain, worthy enough to sustain several films.  Because as great as the Fantastic Four could potentially be, Doom has possibly the greatest value in terms of potential stories to adapt.  In the comics he has crossed over with pretty much all of the Marvel characters at some time – The Avengers, Iron Man, Spiderman, X-Men – so there is enormous potential.  Not to mention the fact he is not just a one-dimensional villain, but a comparatively nuanced character with at times morally ambiguous motives, and a surprisingly sympathetic element to his backstory.  But, he is a proper villain, who would think nothing of sacrificing any who stands in the way of fulfilling his plans – and most importantly he has the power to achieve these (not to mention overcome the heroes).

This franchise needs to go home

There’s little doubt, almost everything about Fantastic Four – including the villains – would be much more at home in the MCU; so hopefully in the coming months there will be financial pressure on Fox, following the financial failure of the latest ‘Fantastic Four’, to negotiate the return of the rights to Marvel Studios.  Because even though the fans are saying that this is what they want – there’s even a petition calling for this – any discussions between Fox and Marvel Studios will only happen because the accountants at Fox decide the only way for the franchise to make money is either selling it back, or sharing (ala Spidey/Sony).  And this is the strange thing in all of this – whilst it is sad to see a talented director and cast potentially have their careers tarnished as a result of this film, on the other hand it is potentially exciting that Fantastic Four might finally have their chance to join the MCU.  Time will tell!

Please Fox - sell the rights back to Marvel Studios! They'll be happy.  We'll be happy.  The Fantastic Four will be happy.  You'll be happy !  Well, happier than you were when the box office for the current film's opening weekend came in, I should imagine...

Movie Review - Fantastic Four: Not even a heroic failure, more like a failed experiment

Each summer blockbuster movie season, there has to be the whipping boy, the one film that everyone seems to want to fail, even before it has finished filming.  Since the growth of the internet, and everyone thinking their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to film making, this has become infinitely worse.  This year the dubious status has befallen the attempt by Fox and Director Josh Trank to reboot 'Fantastic Four'.  To start with, there has been a general perception that, as they couldn't get these characters quite right with the first attempts, perhaps the rights would be better back with Marvel Studios (who, in contrast, have yet to fail to find the right way to put their characters on screen).  As well as that, the two previous (and widely derided) films are still fresh in most people's minds, adding to a sense of pessimism that they'd get it right.  Side-stepping the completely dumb casting controversy, since talk emerged earlier this year of re-shoots, and confirmation that Trank and the Studio hadn't seen eye-to-eye (leading to him quitting a planned Star Wars Anthology spin-off movie), the knives have been out for this one in a big way.  But still, I went in to this film with an open mind; I wanted the nay-sayers, doubters and haters to be wrong, I really did.  I wanted this film to succeed, and give us the definitive adaptation of these characters fans want to see.  Unfortunately, while the film is by no means a disaster, it is pretty mediocre: a superhero film that wants to focus on drama, and a sense of body horror, but doesn't pull off the 'super' or 'team' part when the story needs it to.

Rather than the classic Stan Lee version of these characters, this film is mostly inspired by the post-Millennial Ultimate version, which has a younger team of scientists undergo changes, gaining super-human abilities, as a result of cross-dimensional travel.  The film starts off with scientific prodigy Reed Richards (who will become the stretching Mr Fantastic) as an 11 year old boy, telling his class his ambition to teleport a person from one place to another.  He becomes friends with Ben Grimm (who becomes rock 'monster' The Thing), whose family owns a scrap-yard, helping him with parts to make his first attempt at a teleporting machine.  The film fast-forwards 7 years, and the pair (now played by Miles Teller and Jamie Bell respectively) are teenagers, presenting Richard's latest attempt at the machine at the county science fair.  This catches the eye of scientist Professor Franklin Richards (Reg E. Cathey), and his adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara), who it transpires have been attempting to use similar technology to make cross-dimensional teleportation a reality - and Richard's machine is the key to not only sending, but bringing something back from the parallel dimension.  Joining with disenfranchised and cynical former protégé or Professor Storm, Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebble), and the Professor's rebellious son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), they successfully crack return travel between dimensions.  When the team of youngsters decide to be the first people to make the trip, before NASA takes over the project, things go wrong - Von Doom is left behind, assumed dead, and the others return with bizarre physical abnormalities.  However, the Military sees a use for their powers, sending them on covert missions, whilst promising to find a cure for their conditions.

Don't let the smiles fool you - the Fantastic Four don't seem to find much of what happens in this film particularly 'fantastic'...

It's pretty clear that Trank and the Studio had two different visions for this film, and unfortunately they don't gel.  The Director seems to have wanted a character-driven dramatic approach to the subject, whilst the studio wanted typical superhero blockbuster fayre, to set up a franchise and allow for cross-overs with the X-Men franchise.  The first half of the film, which shows the characters forming friendships as they work on the dimensional crossing, is the most successful part of the film - Trank shows the same flair for getting a believable and easy-going camaraderie out of his cast as he did in 'Chronicle'.  This aspect of the film starts to unravel once they make their fateful journey across dimensions, largely due to some plot decisions that don't really make sense character wise - but are there as a reason to give certain characters their 'powers' later in the film.  After this, apart from a couple of scenes which manage to capture the 'body horror' tone Trank was going for, the plot becomes tepid, and tragically the lead actors begin to look lost in their own film.  It is a waste of the cast - separately each actor has demonstrated in other work (films and/or TV) what they're capable of, but once they powers and special effects come in to play they look as though they are struggling to convey how they should be reacting to it all.

Speaking of special effects, they are frustratingly inconsistent throughout.  Whilst The Thing and Human Torch are well portrayed and look as realistic as possible, other parts don't; there's a terrible CGI monkey, for example.  The alternate dimension is well portrayed, if a bit on the drab side, until some pretty poor looking green ooze-stuff starts erupting.  The stretching effects on Reed Richards are inconsistent too; it's clear that Weta (who handled the effects on this film) could have done with more time to complete certain shots - but they were only given less than a year from principal photography to get them done.  The film does suffer as a result.

While this version of Doctor Doom is more powerful and dangerous than the previous take, it is still a massive failure to properly put the character on the Big Screen.

The final act proves the film's biggest Achilles heel, as it shoe-horns in an 'end of the world threat' that seems tonally out of place with what's preceded it; it relies on some characters making snap judgements that, again, aren't consistent with their previous attitudes/behaviour; and by wasting Doctor Doom.  Why is it Fox don't seem to be able to grasp how to bring this character to the big screen?  In the first half Kebble manages to make Doom seem more than a one-note, scenery chewing villain (unlike the previous films' version), but when he returns from the alternate dimension he has become the typical 'mad' villain, who wants to destroy the world as he has clearly 'gone insane'.  They manage to make him more threatening and genuinely dangerous than the last version - he actually racks up quite a body count - but considering this character is the most famous of all Marvel villains, arguably, he is given little to do (apart from, mainly, recite some pretty awful dialogue), and the threat is resolved with shocking ease by the Fantastic Four.  When the film goes for its CGI fuelled action set-piece it is almost completely weakened by feeling out of place with the tone of the rest of the film, and by dispensing with the film's only threat in an almost inconsequential matter.

Despite their best efforts, it's really clear that Fox simply do not know how to handle Fantastic Four, nor the potentially outstanding villain they have in Doctor Doom.  Marvel have shown that it is possible to capture the pulp and fun side of their characters while bringing some real story-telling heft to them.  Fox needs to embrace this aspect of the Fantastic Four, and they definitely have to embrace the almost operatic scale of Doctor Doom's story.  It's hard not to imagine Marvel Studios doing a far better job of incorporating Doom in their on-screen universe - such a big character, and significant threat, deserves to be set up over multiple films, as they have been doing with Thanos; establishing his power, the massive threat he poses, but also the tragedy in his background that motivates him.

It's not likely Marvel Studios will get Fantastic Four, and therefore Doom, back soon, as it is likely this new take on comic's 'first family' should do well enough at the box office to enable Fox to retain the film rights and proceed with a sequel.  I sincerely hope, however, that they will acknowledge the struggle they are having realising these characters, and talk to Marvel Studios for creative assistance - the same way Sony have done with Spiderman.  Whilst this film is nowhere near to being a dismal mess like 'The Amazing Spiderman 2', neither does the dramatic approach carry enough weight to give the film a slightly redeeming feature, like the heroic failure that is Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.  In the end it's a mid-level comic book superhero flick that, despite its aspirations, is on the whole forgettable.  I wanted to like this film, but it seems like it needs to be third time lucky for the Fantastic Four....

Iconoclast: 'Chronicle's portrayal of a bullying and abuse victim arguably weakens the film

When 'Chronicle' was released at the beginning of 2012 it was met with an enthusiastic reception, both critically and at the Box-Office.  It put Director Josh Trank on the map (leading to him getting the 'Fantastic Four' reboot gig), and established lead actors Dane DeHaan and Michael B. Jordan as talents to watch.  It is, admittedly, well directed and acted - the effects work as the boys develop their psychic powers is impressive, and the camaraderie of teenage lads larking about with them is believably portrayed.  But it's a film that I have some problems with, basically down to its portrayal of someone who has been the victim of bullying and abuse.  This film touched a nerve with me, when it came to the scenes where Andrew (DeHaan) is bullied and ostracised at High School - basically I had a pretty sh*tty time at school with bullying, which panned out to being an almost complete social pariah by the age of 15/16, when most kids are too old to push someone or trip them up, or laugh at it.  There was one particular kid at school who behaved like a nasty, arrogant piece of work - because his dad was a local TV sports presenter on one channel, and because he apparently played guitar, he behaved like he was better than everyone else on the planet. He made my life - and that of several of my friends - something of a misery.  As we got older, and towards the end of high school, I mainly based myself in my small group of genuine friends so as to avoid people, but any encounters with him mostly consisted of me being sneered and laughed at derisively.

In a lot of respects this film gets that experience right, but it doesn't adequately capture a significant part of it - the anger and rage that is felt by the bullying victim.  Sometimes this is turned inwards, sometimes this is directed at those closest to them, but mostly this is stored up and simmers beneath the surface.  When it erupts, it can have tragic results - or it can be used to refocus and drive a person.  In 'Chronicle' though, Andrew doesn't just face bullying at school - he faces it in his neighbourhood, where he is picked on by local thugs (it's suggested they have physically assaulted him, and even mugged him, before the events of the film).  Worst of all, he is subjected to abuse at home at the hands of his alcoholic father, who (it is strongly implied) beats him.  When, at the end, Andrew unleashes his powers against those who have abused him, the good work that the film has done leading up to it in terms of naturalistic performances and characterisation is arguably undermined.

'Chronicle' authentically portrays the camaraderie of three teenage lads larking about.  Only, with Psychic powers...

Firstly, just because Andrew is bullied and abused at home and school did not necessarily mean he would 'turn bad'.  The film partly tries to justify this shift through the device of his mother's slowly succumbing to cancer.  When there's no money to buy her medication (because his dad has spent it on Alcohol) Andrew turns to crime to get it, using his powers to do so.  Whilst this is partly believable, I believe that it would take more than that to push someone like Andrew to using their powers in 'bad' ways.  In real life (speaking from experience), surviving bullying is easier with the support of genuine friends - but before he slides to 'evil' we see Andrew becoming isolated from his two best friends - and, again, I'm not sure this is convincing.  The falling out stems from an embarrassment involving over-drinking and vomiting at a party, and besides the fact it puts Andrew back at the bottom of the social hierarchy amongst his peers, it never feels like a convincing reason for him to kill Steve (Jordan).  Apart from, of course, to show how he is 'turning bad' in how he uses his powers.  He falls out with his other friend, his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), when he uses his powers to get back at one of the bullies we see assaulting him earlier in the film.  Matt confronts him and lectures him about how they agreed not to use their powers on living things, but this brings me to my second issue: Matt's reaction shows how the film doesn't really sympathise with the experience of being bullied.

The film sort of justifies Andrew's descent in to 'villainy' due to the abuse and bullying, but then it bizarrely tells the audience we shouldn't sympathise with him.  Eh?!?

After we've seen all that Andrew has endured at the hands of his peers at school, the local thugs, and his abusive father, the audience is supposed to side with Matt when Andrew starts using his powers against those who have bullied and abused him. Whilst DeHaan has the right look and acting ability to pull off a troubled person, it feels like a cliché when he is contrasted with Matt, who is the stereotypical square-jawed, tall dark and handsome leading man.  It is a lazy kind of short-hand that the film uses with this approach to casting the actors, which basically says "you are less likely to turn bad if you are stereotypically handsome, and more likely to turn bad if you're not".  It is a lazy way of making the audience get behind Matt during the final act, as opposed to arguably where the audience's sympathy should lie, with Andrew.  It cheapens what he goes through over the course of the film, and the way in which it contributes to where he ends up in the final act.

If the film really wanted to show us how bullying and abuse would have pushed Andrew in to using his powers in a 'bad' way it has also failed in this respect - because, arguably, it doesn't go far enough.  Again, demonstrating how the makers either don't fully appreciate how bullying really feels or can make the victim feel, there is a holding back when we finally begin to see Andrew striking back against those who have made his life a misery.  Having felt the rage that being bullied creates, looking back to my school days if I'd have had powers, like Andrew, I'm not sure I would have killed the people bullying me, but I would have wanted to hurt them.  And not only that, I would have wanted to humiliate them for all the times they'd laughed at me and made me feel inadequate in front of the rest of the school.  Pulling out teeth would have been a start, but why do just do that, when he could have thrown them around, broken a limb or two - then pulled their clothes off and left them naked and exposed in front of their peer group?  Again, when we see him turn the tables on the local thugs and use his powers to mug them, putting myself in his shoes I would have used the powers to afflict more psychological terror before bringing physical harm on them - pay back for all the times they'd intimidated and threatened me.  I can partly understand why the film makers held back at this point - budgetary reasons, and no doubt not wanting to push the film's rating up too high and cut off potential box office from a younger audience.

But what is totally unforgivable is that the one character who is completely irredeemable, who totally deserved the full force of Andrew's anger and to meet their death at his hands, is rescued by Matt.  In pure story-telling terms Andrew's dad (Michael Kelly) fulfils the role of an antagonist who surely deserves to be killed off.  We see him completely oblivious to the suffering of his wife as she slowly succumbs to cancer, due to his alcoholism, as well as being oblivious to the misery his son is enduring at school.  Not only that he adds to this misery by directing his rage towards Andrew - there is no moment of remorse or contrition over this, his anger and Andrew is sustained throughout the entire film.  And to top it all, he blames Andrew for not being there when his wife finally passes of her cancer, unleashing a furious tirade at him - despite Andrew being the only person trying to get his mothers' drugs and ease her pain.  There is no reason from a story-telling point-of-view for him to survive the film,and  the moment when Matt saves Andrew's dad is completely frustrating, serving little purpose than reinforcing the poorly set out 'good/bad' dynamic which is supposed to define the pair in the final act.  Andrew would throw a man to his death, therefore he is irredeemably bad, while Matt saves that man, so is clearly the good guy who we must root for.  Again, it just cheapens what Andrew has been through, how he has by and large been the victim throughout the film.

My biggest problem with the final 'battle' is that the audience are given more reasons to sympathise with Andrew, but are expected to accept Matt as the 'hero' - who happens to have stereotypical 'hero' looks, unlike Andrew...

It is also a lazy way of setting up that Andrew must die at the end.  We're supposed to believe that he is so consumed by his grief-stricken rage that there is no way back for him - however, there are moments earlier in the film where Andrew has acted out of anger but shown genuine remorse, so there is a precedent that suggests he may have calmed down.  Although Matt's attempts to do this are seemingly futile, it would arguably have made sense to try and remove him from the city to an area where his rage would have caused less harm and less danger to by-standers.  However, that wouldn't have made for such a spectacle-filled final act, would it?

On the one hand I get that 'Chronicle' isn't meant to be a super-hero movie - it is framed more like a horror film, in certain respects.  And underneath the narrative is a 'counter-point', if you like, to the origin story of, say, Spider-man: like Andrew, Peter Parker is bullied at school and something of a social outcast, but he has the loving upbringing and guidance of his Aunt May & Uncle Ben to inspire him to use his powers for good.  This film highlights that, if he hadn't have had that, he'd have probably turned in to a little a**hole after the spider bite.  But aside from that, having been through bullying myself (though thankfully not domestic abuse) I ultimately feel the way the film handles it shows a real sympathy or understanding of the experience.  I think the biggest clincher is that the film seems to suggest that if you're bullied and socially shunned by your peers at school, you're more likely to turn 'bad'.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the experience of being bullied did not turn me bad, or violent, but I chose to turn the hurt and anger in a different direction.  I became interested in music, and found an outlet for my feelings through playing the drums.  And above all it made me want to be a good person, not like the bullies - contributing to making me work as a volunteer with elderly and disabled people, and campaigning for development charities in my late Teens and early 20's.

As for the bully I spoke about, well things didn't turn out so well for him after school.  His apparent talent for playing guitar never lead to a career, and he fell in to drug abuse - dying of an overdose a couple of years ago.  I don't know what drove him to that, perhaps it was the same issues that made him a bully, perhaps he was so mean to people to distract from those issues.  If I'd have known what they were, or how his life would end up, I don't think I would have allowed myself to be bullied by him when I was at school.  I probably would have just felt sorry for him. But then, things might have been different if I'd have developed psychic powers at that age..!