Sunday 20 September 2015

Monthly Marvel Musings: Creating a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless and counter-productive

I'm about to start a new job, which I'm super excited about, but a minor down-side is that it'll involve a bit more commuting than my current one - as a result I'm anticipating I'll have a lot less time for this blog.  Especially over the next 6 months as I'll be intensively involved in finishing a course I'm doing.  So after this post things might go more quiet than they have been recently, but rest assured - I'm not giving up on it entirely.  Here's a post I've been planning on writing for almost two months - thanks for reading!




MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS


Why a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless

If you enjoy comic book adaptations and the Superhero genre, this really is a golden era.  We've had a take on Batman that has embraced the fact comic book characters can have real world relevance, and make commentary on real world political situations.  We've had a take on X-Men that, over several films, have fully grasped the social commentary that underpins these characters, as well as the cinematic potential of portraying their mutant powers on screen.  And Marvel Studios are demonstrating that it is possible to turn cult, or less well-known characters, in to box office gold by focusing on what has made them so enduring in print - interesting characters and memorable stories.  Sure, there are still stumbles along the way - some adaptations don't work as well as others - but on the whole if you enjoy films, and you enjoy superhero stories, you've got to be pretty happy at the moment.



"Marvel's better than DC because-" "No, DC are better than Marvel!"  Err, hey, it IS possible to like both, okay?


Sadly this isn't enough, and with Warner Bros finally getting their act together and developing a shared big-screen universe for their DC properties, the rivalry between Marvel and DC is being reignited by many fans - regardless which company's work they prefer.  On one side, DC fans point out how most Marvel characters are 'imitations' of DC Characters established well before them - which is a good point: before Quicksilver there was The Flash; before Mr Fantastic there was the stretching Plastic Man; Green Arrow wielded a bow over 20 years before Hawkeye did; and many more besides.  On the other side of the argument, Marvel fans point out the popularity and success of the Marvel brand, with many characters becoming as iconic - more so, in a lot of cases - than DC.  On top of that the success of Marvel Studios, is being used by Marvel fans to sneer at DC.  But since the trailers for 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' dropped some DC fans have gone on the attack, using the darker and more serious tone of these films to justify a point of view that they are making better Superhero movies than the Marvel ones.

To me, these attitudes - all of them - are pretty idiotic, and in fact completely counter-productive.  To my mind, whilst there is a difference in aesthetic and tone that will set the two franchises apart, key to them are two things: respect for the source material, and drawing upon why these characters have been, and still are, so beloved by fans after decades.  I would argue that these are the foundations that have given us films like Donner's 'Superman', Singer's 'X-Men', Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  All of these films are very different in their ways, and at the same time have been influenced by its predecessor.  For example, Singer made no secret of his love for Donner's first 'Superman' movie, and it influenced him making X-Men.  You can see how the success of the X-Men film - taking a fantastic concept (people with mutant powers), but honing in on the part that makes it relevant and grounded in the 'real world' - arguably spurred on Warners' decision to make their Nolan directed Batman reboot very realistic, grounded, and believable.  Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, has spoken about how the success of Warners' Batman and other DC films enables Marvel Studios to keep making their films - and inspiring them to make them better.  And you can argue that without the success of 'Avengers Assemble', Warners/DC would not have got their act together and started the process of bringing the Justice League to the big screen.


'Batman Vs Superman' is looking to be a very exciting prospect - despite the initial scepticism of many (myself included)

So when you start banging a drum about which companies' characters are getting the better films, or the better on-screen shared universe, I do believe that you cheapen BOTH sets of films.  For example, 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman vs Superman' director Zack Snyder has spoken about his enjoyment of some of Marvel Studios' movies, and emphasising the difference in approach and tone the Warners' DC films are taking.  I can appreciate that - to me, it's not that the DC films have more 'real world' relevance/relatability (Marvel films have been doing this, only without banging on about it as vehemently - take 'Captain America The Winter Soldier's references to the ethics of drone warfare, or 'Iron Man 3's satirical swipes on the War on Terror, with a 'manufactured' threat to justify continual militarisation for arms companies to profit from).  I'd say the big difference is that Snyder is focusing upon the iconography of the comic portrayals of Batman and Superman, and also the 'mythic' qualities of the two, as representations of two sides of America's psyche (and how it is perceived by other countries).  Marvel, on the other hand, are very much about the characters, and bringing their iconic moments and stories to the screen, in a way that respects the source material and also works cinematically.


Sure Zack... DC Characters are always more serious than Marvel, and are making a big, sweeping, mythology.  Bet your faithfulness to the source material won't extend to putting a moment like this one in your DC films... (source: Cheezburger)

Unfortunately, Snyder recently made disparaging comments that suggest he looks down at certain comic/Superhero characters as somehow being lesser or inferior, when he described Ant-Man as a "flavor of the week" superhero.  After spending so much time emphasising his respect for the source material, looking to much admired and respected stories, authors and artists to inform his soon-to-be-released film, Snyder has arguably undone much of that with this comment, as it betrays a lack of respect for the history and significance of these other characters.  For example, although Ant-Man has never been as popular as many other superheroes (either Marvel or DC), it is a character with over 50 years of history, and in terms of story has been an integral part of many memorable and influential events: Ant-Man was in the original Avengers comic line-up, and was the creator of Ultron; not only that, the original Ant-Man Hank Pym was portrayed with significant psychological issues (including spousal abuse) long before the likes of Frank Miller began delving in to those that motivate a character like Batman.

So whilst some of his comments have been by and large neutral, Snyder's recent comments do seem to betray an opinion that Warner's DC movie universe will be 'better' than Marvel's.  This is highlighted by comments, not just from him, but other execs from Warners, that their films are 'serious' and relate to the 'real world'.  I've touched upon the 'real world' issues Marvel films have at least made reference to, but this is more about Marvel Studios including more moments of levity in their films - something that DC will avoid.  Putting in a witty one-liner, or a moment of humour, does not detract from making a comic book/Superhero movie a serious adaptation - it's a matter of putting these moments in the right place, at the right time, so that when there is a dramatic, shocking or emotional moment, these aren't undermined.  Making out that the DC movies will be 'better' because they're side-stepping this is disingenuous - although a serious tone suits Batman, DC fans would have to admit that in the comics there have been no end of goofy, silly, and pointlessly-funny moments (some better than others) - and that goes for Marvel comics too.  Look at DC characters on TV - the 'tone' is probably closer to what Marvel is doing, and it works - 'Arrow' and 'Flash' have been entertaining, fun when it's right, serious when it's right, emotional when it's right, witty when it's right to do so.  As great as it is when a writer really takes the psychology or social commentary inherent in a particular character seriously, people read comics first and foremost because they're fun (and because Superheroes are, most of all, awesome!).  So the people steering the DC films need to acknowledge this, and stop suggesting a 'serious tone' is better than including moments of levity.


Snyder is clearly aiming to take his visual cues from the depiction of the characters from the comic artwork, which a welcome approach and has got comic fans excited.

And it's not just approaches to the tone or the source material where Warners' have been making digs at Marvel; an executive suggested that Warners' DC movies would be better than Marvel Studios, as they would allow Directors to bring more of their creative voice and ideas to the DC property(ies) they direct.  Firstly, this is nonsense, because when you watch nearly all of the Marvel Studios films it is possible to see the influence of the Director - in fact, Marvel Studios choose their Directors because their previous work reflects the tone they want for the film.  Take Joe Johnston's 'Captain America The First Avenger' - with its pulpy tone, period setting, and retro sci-fi, it harkens back to Johnston's earlier film 'The Rocketeer', which has a massive cult following.  When you watch Jon Favreau's Iron Man movies, part of the reason they work (admittedly better on the first than the second) is the improvisational space he gives the actors, allowing them to bounce off each other and bring real charisma to the film.  And look at 'Guardians of the Galaxy' - it has just as much heart, sarcasm, wit and inappropriate humour as James Gunn's previous films as a director (like 'Slither' and 'Super') and writer (like the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake which - hey! - Snyder directed).  Having said that, there is a process these films go through - the producers know what they want to do, how they want to steer the franchise, and which parts of the comic they want to follow or take more from.  This means that compromises have to be made when Directors want to add something that they want in the film.  Gunn has acknowledged this, and Joss Whedon made no secret of the battles he had over parts of 'Avengers Age of Ultron' he wanted, and that the Studio wanted.  Warners are no less immune to this - further highlighting that the comments are nonsense, despite stating this, they fired planned director Michelle MacLaren from Wonder Woman, as her vision did not match what the studio wanted.

Who is right in these situations?  Is it the Director, who is struggling to bring artistic integrity to a film that is, at the end of the day, part of a corporate brand?  Or is it the studio, who wants to stay close enough to the source material so as to please fans and audiences with a satisfying (and financially successful) adaptation?  I'd say both, and to get there does require compromise, that is clear.  So for Warners to make out that their DC films will be more director led, and therefore have more 'creative' or artistic worth' but then lose a director because they didn't want her artistic and creative interpretation, again shows that this is at the very least and unhelpful (and arguably false) view.


For comic book and Superhero fans, the prospect of seeing the Trinity of Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman together on the big screen is a fairly momentous and exciting one...

Ultimately, trying to argue that one company's creative output in the same genre is better than another, at this point in time, is fairly pointless.  I grew up with the Donner Superman film, watching Batman on TV, reading Spiderman in comics, and thanks to Tim Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men, I have never lost that fascination in these characters and stories in to my adulthood.  I will watch films based on Marvel or DC characters, and my expectation will be the same for all of them: that they will entertain me, that they will reinforce what it is about these characters that make them so enduring and flat-out cool; and I will be told one of the many stories that have enthralled readers for decades - in a way that is cinematic: visually thrilling and absorbing.

For the record, I am absolutely thrilled about seeing Batman Vs Superman, and Suicide Squad next year, and I am looking forward immensely to seeing the Justice League on the big screen, including all the characters that have made up that team in their own adventures.  Just because I am an avowed fan of the MCU does not mean I cannot be excited about the upcoming DC slate.  Sure, it may be that some of these movies don't live up to our hopes and expectations - that is always the way with this genre.  Marvel Studios has got its weaker films, and there are weaker entries in every other Superhero franchise (Marvel and DC based).  Ultimately, if you're someone who has ever enjoyed Superhero stories - regardless of whether they're in comics, as a cartoon, a tv drama, or a movie - you should be grateful and excited that we're in an era when Studios, Writers, Directors and Actors not only take the genre seriously, but want to make each film the best and most faithful adaptation they possibly can.  Arguing over which company does it better just mars this enjoyment, creates opinions that don't really stand up to much scrutiny - and is arguably counter-productive.

Instead, we should be very grateful that we are hopefully going to see great adaptations of characters and super-teams who've yet to have their shot at big screen success (The Flash, The Inhumans, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Justice League).  Whether they're Marvel creations or DC characters, I am excited to see their movies, and hope they get the treatment they deserve.  You might prefer the DC characters over Marvel, or vice-versa, but when either does well it is to the benefit of the other - whether it's the inspiration to do better, or showing that the risk of investing a budget to get the adaptation right is worth it for the Studio.  That is more productive than a silly argument whether Justice League are better than The Avengers...

Friday 11 September 2015

Why 'Mad Max: Fury Road' was the best Blockbuster this Summer


To Hollywood this past weekend (the Labor Day holiday in the US) officially marks the end of the Summer, and with it the annual 'blockbuster' season.  This summer has been quite a good one at the Box Office, with notable record-breaking successes, some surprising hits, and the usual handful of (mostly unsurprising) misfires.  Whilst most of the blockbusters to hit at the Box Office have been solid, if unspectacular (Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, MI: Rogue Nation), there is one film this summer that has stood out as truly special.  It is a film that, given its journey to the screen, is remarkable it exists at all - the fact it turned out as good as it is, is almost miraculous.  I mean, who would have believed that a new entry to a franchise, coming almost 30 years after the last, with a completely different actor in the lead role, would turn out to be so great?  But 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a phenomenal achievement, and this year's best blockbuster - here's why.

It is a thrilling, gripping and exhilarating action movie

While a lot of action blockbusters get criticised for weak or underdeveloped plot, there's also been a recent trend of some being criticised for having too much plot - being convoluted, confusing, or being full of holes.  'Fury Road' eschews both issues by being stripped down to almost a primal level - it is a relentless and intense chase movie.  The visuals inform the story without requiring reams of tedious expositional dialogue: the savage, yet strangely beautiful, sun-blasted desert wasteland, and the filthy, sore covered remnants of humanity, both tell the devastation of the post-apocalyptic world in a powerful and haunting way.  The fanaticism of the War Boys, throwing themselves from speeding vehicles with glee to certain death, and the wild and terrifying modifications to the vehicles, all speak of the madness that has consumed the human race after the fall of civilisation.  Using these effective sweeping strokes enables the film to concentrate on fulfilling its chief aim - of being a thrilling, almost continuous chase.  Part of the film's success at this is also down to some 'old school' film making approaches...

Actual people actually leapt from actual moving vehicles that were actually driving at high speeds... how was no one killed making this film??!?!?!

It defies the CGI trend with practical effects and stunts

Let's just stop and think about this for a moment: director George Miller had all these crazy and dangerous looking vehicles built for actual real, took them and the actors to the Namib Desert, then preceded to crash them and fling people from them.  At high speed.  At lethal speeds..!  And Warner Bros happily gave Miller the money and permission to do all this!  And we get to reap the benefits of this approach and the decisions behind it, because - for all the digital wonderment in films like 'Age of Ultron' and 'Jurassic World', seeing real vehicles and real people performing insane, lethal looking stunts added an incalculable amount to the tension and thrill of the continual chase that makes up most of the movie.  I don't think any other film this year had stunts as jaw-dropping as this film - mainly because, as you watch, you can't help but think that someone must have died, or at the very least been seriously injured, making this film?  Surely?!!?  The fact the stunts look so incredibly dangerous adds to the effectiveness of the film's action scenes; you feel there is a real risk of harm to the characters, making the stakes even greater than in many other films today.

Every character is given a sense of humanity

In the midst of all the action and insanity, Miller still manages to give each character a depth that few other blockbusters can manage, even when they have more dialogue or 'plot twists'.  It comes down to simple touches, but even the villains - easy to make stock characters with the depth of cardboard - are depicted with an eye that is at times neutral, even compassionate.  For example, take the first scene we meet central villain Immortan Joe - worshipped as a god by the War Boys, we see a frail old man, covered in weeping sores, reliant on oxygen canisters, before he dons the war plate and body armour.  Other villains are presented similarly, depicting their grotesque deformities alongside clothing  accoutrements that suggest they have some concept of the civilization that has gone, but has been distorted by madness.  Then there's Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who has one of the most convincing character arcs of recent films.  He goes on a genuine journey, so to speak, from a fanatic willing to die for Immortan Joe, having a crisis over what he believes in, before making a decision of whom he should rightly fight for.  The film also subverts a typical romantic sub-plot, when we see one of Immortan Joe's fleeing wives, Capable (Riley Keogh), develop a bond with Nux through a sort of fascination with him.  Instead of having them 'couple up', this platonic relationship is part of what enables Nux to move through his development as a character.

The typical 'romantic' sub-plot was neatly subverted by Nux and Capable's relationship - another thing that sets this head and shoulders above most other blockbusters

This is a film that empowers women

Look, I've previously discussed where I fit in with feminism, let's say I am sympathetic to any point of view that says that ANYBODY who is victimised or oppressed for any reason should not be treated in that way, or should accept that as their 'place' in life.  After growing up watching 'Aliens' I have no problem accepting strong, tough, female characters who are central at driving a plot or a movie - and this film delivers a superb example in Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  She is driven, resourceful, tough, yet compassionate.  She gets some excellent moments, including some the demonstrate ways that she is more capable than Tom Hardy's Max (like when she uses him as the stand for her rifle!), or in different ways to him.  There have been criticisms that she is more prominent than Max, but her centrality does not steal the film from Max - after all, it is  through Max that we get our way in to this world gone mad, and it is Max who leads their return to safety, finally confronting Immortan Joe and the War Boys.  There are some imbeciles who claim the film has an anti-male message, or belittles men.  No, the film treats men and women equally, and if you think that a film filled with cars, action and violence is pandering to feminism, then you're a complete ass-hat.

Furiosa was a revelation in this film.  But does her being a strong female character diminish Max's role at all?  No, he's still an absolute bad-ass, and - as the title suggests - has a couple of screws loose...

'Mad Max: Fury Road' delivered intense thrills, astonishing visuals, and a surprising level of depth, setting it head and shoulders above the rest of the Blockbuster batch this year.  That Warner Bros allowed George Miller to have $130 million +++, to go drive crazy cars around a desert in Africa, 30 years after the last film in the series, is remarkable.  That the resultant film is as outstanding as it is feels almost miraculous, and makes me feel we have been fortunate to witness it..!