Hela vs Enchantress: Where DCEU Went Wrong

It’s amazing to think that even though the Marvel Cinematic Universe began in 2008, this year (2017) is the first wherein the MCU has presented a female villain after nine years. In contrast, the DC Extended Universe started in just 2013, making it five years younger than the MCU and with a female villain in theaters after only three years. Despite being far younger, the DCEU has provided multiple female villains, as well as a stand-alone heroine film–something that the MCU has not accomplished yet–the first heroine movie will appear in the MCU after eleven years!

 

The only two female-led films in either DCEU (2017) and MCU (2019)

 

 

The DCEU actually boasts the greatest amount of female villains, especially if you include morally flexible Amanda Waller 

 

Even with these accomplishments, DCEU has struggled to create a strong villain that resonates with the audience. MCU isn’t much better, with the most charismatic villain of note being Loki from the Thor franchise and many others being very forgettable.

 

Thor 2 villain: Whats-His-Face / Phantom of the Opera Fanboy

 

But despite being outstripped in volume by DCEU for representation, the MCU has once again provided a more interesting villain than their counterpart for a stand-alone villainess: Hela.

 

Warning: Female Villains are also statistically long-haired, magical brunettes with raccoon-eyes

 

Here is a quick rundown of just how remarkably similar these characters are despite coming from two separate comic universes:

Former prisoner Hela comes in as a strong threat and just gets stronger, easily destroying everything in her path with her magical abilities and an army of slaves. With this army of enchanted slaves made from her victims, she plans on conquering civilizations.

Enchantress starts off a prisoner in the beginning, and then eventually turning into a magical goddess with an army of slaves. With her army of magically enchanted slaves made up of her victims, Enchantress plans on conquering civilizations.

Despite these strong similarities, the audience never really sees Enchantress actively using much violence. Instead, her brother is a source of violence, as well as her slaves. Because of this, Enchantress feels like much less of a threat and more like an evil belly dancer. What a waste!

 

Tangible Threat

Probably the biggest single complaint about the Suicide Squad movie is how muddled Enchantress’ motive is expressed. In the film, she falls into the trope of manifesting a beam of light in the sky that is apparently bad and might destroy technology–somehow. This generic super-villain trope is an Achilles heel for the genre at large, and additionally why many critics fail to take these films seriously. Additionally, the poor explanation for Enchantress creating the beam of light smacks of lazy writing.

 

If these weren’t labeled, I’m not 100% sure I could tell them all apart. (Topmost: Suicide Squad)

In contrast, it is established very early that Hela is equal to Odin and his progeny in strength and has no apparent weakness, as well as taking away the signature weapon from the main character Thor and easily disposing of the strongest Asgardian heroes that stand in her way. This show of strength is not paralleled in the earlier film Suicide Squad with the Enchantress.

Hela on the other hand, comes off as a very magical being, actively using spells often, as well as being consistently violent in a way that makes it clear that she is a threat to everyone around her. Remember, both of these characters are very old, very magical beings that have been imprisoned previously for thousands of years, that are known to act as malevolent conquerers. However, only Hela gives off that vibe.

So in short, what Suicide Squad could have done to create real tension would be to show the more violent, lethal and evil tendencies of Enchantress rather than the angsty belly-dancer they gave the audience.

 

 

Realistic Resolution

Another huge problem (other than many plot holes) with Enchantress’ character is how easily she is dispatched. Honestly, as an ancient goddess of incredible power, a little stab from a gymnast-psychiatrist anti-hero should not have been enough to stop her.

Let’s just look at it this way: her living heart had been cut out from her body, and yet stayed functional for thousands of years. Logically, the conclusion can be drawn that her heart is not really that weak against cutting. So, for many viewers this sudden end felt unsatisfying.

 

For those of you who don’t know, that’s a Thermite bomb next to her  heart that was cut out of her chest thousands of years ago–a bit more destructive than a katana

 

In comparison, Hela was simply too powerful to be defeated by Thor, even when he has extremely powerful allies to assist him. In fact, Thor essentially had to throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water in order to temporarily defeat Hela by resurrecting a god-killing demon (who also wants to kill him) in an even more powerful form that ends up destroying the entire flat-planet of Asgard.

Honestly, recognizing that he was not strong enough and surrendering his pride to a greater power to defeat Hela was far more believable.

To that end, it would have been far better to see the Enchantress be dispatched by either a greater magical force (for which in the comics there is a precedent) or completely unleashing the demon within the only other magical character: Diablo. Just as much as Suicide Squad wasted Enchantress’ potential, they did even worse by Diablo. Since they were adjusting origins for characters, it would have been easy to make Diablo a counterpart to Enchantress. It could have easily been magical Middle-Eastern goddess vs fiery Aztec god. It would have been even better if Diablo had been able to help June Moone take control of Enchantress much like he had control over his demon side.

 

Aztec Fire God? Check!

 

Villains and World Building

To put it simply, Suicide Squad created a very narrow world in an already small cinematic universe, whereas Thor 3 vastly expanded and connected the cinematic universe even more. Often villains are the tools used to force characters into expanding their knowledge and experience of the world, but in Suicide Squad it was hard to feel like anything that happened in that movie affected the cinematic universe. And realistically, there is no mention of the huge amount of city-wide damage from Suicide Squad referenced in any other DCEU film.

Villains as a catalyst for expansion, and forcing a change in characters can make stories much livelier and rich. And in this instance, Suicide Squad squandered the rich history of their first magical character and the repercussions that should have followed her introduction.

The introduction of Hela led to memorable growth and drastic, permanent change in the MCU and overall growth and expansion of her cinematic universe.

 

Conclusion

It’s hard to not draw comparisons between these two characters and how important it can be to create scenarios wherein villains truly threaten the existence of the other characters. Realistically, there is a good chance that audiences will see both of these villains again in the future. In either film, the defeat is at best a set-back or questionable and left on a cliff-hanger. I know for sure that Hela will return, as her role as the goddess of death is significant to Thanos and his motivations. It also seems likely that Enchantress will return, due to her file inclusion in the papers handed from Amanda Waller to Bruce Wayne/Batman.

 

They don’t keep files on the “dead” for posterity

 

What I hope is that the next time we see Enchantress in the theater, that the DCEU will have taken a few notes from the successful introduction of Hela. Will DCEU ever learn how to use villains? Will we see either of these villains again in the future? Or will Suicide Squad simply disappear into history as a failed experiment? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.

Trying to Remain Unbiased Thor: Ragnarok Edition

Possible SPOILERS ahead!!

I am fully aware that as an established Marvel Cinematic Universe fan, I already have a positive bias towards any of their movies. What is interesting about the MCU is that the general consensus from viewers is that the Thor franchise has the untenable position of being the red-headed-step-child of the MCU.

 

Though not this redhead, I did actually lose my virginity to one. (mine was a year older, not younger.. and also not British)

 

But, for all of its faults, it actually commits no egregious sins beyond what other far more popular MCU films have been allowed to make. Now, there are many reasons why Thor is treated more harshly than other MCU films, but I feel that it likely comes down to more established deuteragonists than other films that usually maintain a single protagonist.  To that end, Jane Foster and Thor Odinson experience more dynamic character arcs than any other romantic pair in the MCU.

Do I think this means that the Thor franchise did “worse” due to more feminist subtexts? Well, I don’t think the situation is that clear cut, but I do think that may have been a factor.

Going further, there has been controversy against the Thor franchise in the comic world due to Thor Odinson losing the ability to wield Mjolnir and Jane Foster actually becoming the new Thor, God of Thunder.

 

Loved the comic, and the new costume for both Thor and Odinson are amazing!

In all honesty, the change brought a breath of fresh air to the comic series as well as giving real problems to a character who is otherwise literally a God. If you haven’t read it, check it out. However, I can totally see how trying to bridge what is happening in the MCU and in the comics can be confusing. And I can see how old aficionados could be put-off by changing so much of the Thor comics for it to fit better into the logic of the MCU.

All that being said, I actually enjoy the Thor movies (yes even Dark World). This is the one and arguably only superhero franchise that has managed to give us a villain that audiences equally love and hate: Loki. DCEU certainly has not been able to manage any villain to equal popularity–even though they had ample opportunity with Enchantress, yet somehow managed to instead neuter her as a villain and make her bland. Yes, I’m still sore over Suicide Squad–more like Suicide Squandered Chance to Overtake the MCU.

So it was disconcerting to hear from a friend of mine who got an early viewing while in the UK that the movie–though very pretty–was very hasty and the beginning of the movie seemed to be haphazardly thrown together.

 

I’m looking at you purple, don’t let me down!

 

Bad preliminary aside, the information that I gleaned was all second hand and I have not actually seen the movie yet myself. I don’t make a huge effort to stay away from reviews anyway because I am skeptical at best and at worst, defiant. So, despite all the misgivings in regards to previous Thor movies, and poor plot construction, you better believe my butt will be in a seat opening weekend.

And not just to see the latest Stan Lee Cameo.

 

These just came out at Walmart and I kinda need them all…

 

What are your thoughts about the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok movie? Think it will fly or flop? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

 

DCEU vs MCU November 2017 Edition

I am totally looking forward to the two upcoming movies Justice League (DCEU) and Thor: Ragnarok (MCU).  From what we’ve seen historically, there is sure to be some parallels between the two movies that are both being advertised with the premise of “superheroes team up to take on an otherworldly villain”.

Honestly, I am looking forward to both but I would be lying if I were to not include that Wonder Woman is 90% of why I am even bothering to see Justice League when it comes out in theaters (instead of Amazon Prime).

Amazon I love you, sponsor me in the future

What I’m hoping for, however, is to be utterly surprised by how different these movies actually are (Please no “Armageddon” vs “Deep Impact” situation here) and to see some interesting storytelling. I’m hoping neither of them fall into formulaic plot lines that become boring and predictabl–because, at the end of the day I am still a fan of both of these huge cinematic universes and I want to see them succeed.

Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below, and whether or not you’ll be watching, both, neither or just one of these movies.

Rose City Comic Con 2016

Here are some of the activities I had experienced during Rose City Comic Con 2016. It was pretty fun. I enjoyed being a crossplay Superman, Lady Deadpool (and Corps), and the mash up of Mandolorian Animated-Series Catwoman.

Rose City Comic Con

Coffee+Taco Group had another amazing year at Rose City Comic Con and HERE is where you can see a compilation of some of our photos.

 

Agents of Shield: Is Coulson Actually an Agent of Chaos?

GUYS! I’m finally writing an article about the series that inspired the title for my blog! Better yet, I plan on free handing it so hopefully this comes out sensible. As always there are some SPOILERS AHEAD, so please read at your own risk!

So here we go, “T.A.H.I.T.I. Sucked” Presents:

Three Reasons Why Agent Coulson is Actually an Agent of Chaos

Marvel: where your favorite main characters never really die.

Leadership–Or Lack There Of

I have loved the character Agent Phil Coulson since he first appeared in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with “Iron Man”. Additionally, when he died in the first Avengers movie, I like so many others was incredibly distraught at the loss of the character. However, thankfully–or not–he was brought back to life in in the TV series “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” (AOS). Up until the moment where the AOS and “Captain America: Winter Soldier” timelines converge, Coulson plays much the same role he always did within the S.H.I.E.L.D. Agency. Afterwards, when Hydra is revealed to have corrupted S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury steps down as Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. and leaves the pitiful remnants of a once glorious spy organization to Coulson to scrape together again.

 

Coulson takes on the challenge given to him, and arguably fails horrifically. Instead of characteristically being detail oriented like we see in the movies, Coulson largely loses sight of the big picture when presented with threats that personally affect him. Often he chooses the lives of his friends—and especially Daisy/Skye—over the overall mission they are on.

Furthermore, he often refuses to delegate certain missions in order to enact revenge of some sort or another. There is “leading by example” and then there is Agent Coulson whose style most effectively resembles a blind drunk running through a wind-chime shop, making lots of noise and often getting tangled up in situations he ought not to have been near in the first place.

 

If You Know Him, You’ll Probably Die

Many of the choices Coulson makes throughout the series invariably leads to the death of dozens S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents on and off screen. Look I even made a list:

 

These are the only ones I could find names for.

I don’t know what’s more shocking, the fact that 21 named character deaths associated with Coulson directly by season 3, or the fact that the AOS alludes to hundreds more. In one of the last episodes of season 3, the audience witnesses the death of at least twenty S.H.I.E.L.D. agents without so much as an ethical quiver from Coulson himself.

My dick will lead to your death.

Even his love interest is not immune to this curse he apparently has and is almost immediately “fridged” after sleeping with him—and her death immediately sends him on a revenge spree.

 

Why Make Friends When You Can Make Enemies?

Yeah Grant, we’re the bad guys…

What is interesting to note, is that after the first big reveal of an external enemy—Hydra revealing themselves—the biggest antagonist for the series is almost always Grant Ward, Coulson’s hand-picked agent who turned out to by a Hydra agent all along. Grant spends all of his time making like more difficult for Coulson’s team after the Hydra event. Actually, now that I think about it Coulson has a lot in common with Voldemort—who also chooses his own greatest advisory.

	Phil Coulson	Voldemort
Difficult to kill?	Yes	Yes
Comes back to life?	Yes	Yes
Has passionate followers?	Yes	Yes
Often fighting a social minority?	Yes (inhumans)	Yes (muggles)
Spies on the public	Yes	Yes
Enjoys historical artifacts significant to his work?	Yes	Yes

Huh, Come to think of it I might address these superficial similarities more in another article.

Grant Ward is such a consistent antagonist that even his death—revenge killing perpetuated by Coulson—didn’t allow his character to die. And honestly, even though I just watched Ward get burned up in space on the season 3 finale, I’m not convinced he might not somehow rejoin the show in season 4.

Hail Hydra.

The thing is, with Grant and the other enemies that Coulson makes, is that there are such amplifying degrees of retaliation. In many situations Coulson’s decisions force his enemies to be stronger than they might ordinarily be without his influence. It is like he is actively making the world more chaotic around him.

What’s interesting to note is that Coulson’s personality shift to intermittent erratic dangerousness, could be attributed to a couple of different things: Project T.A.H.I.T.I., or even Loki.

Loki: Great, now my staff is messy.

Though it seems far more likely that AOS will attribute the personality shift to the Kree blood used on him during Project T.A.H.I.T.I. after his initial death. AOS alludes to the Kree blood and the project itself making Coulson act dangerously insane, even to the point of helplessly carving into the walls of his office. He’s not the only one negatively affected by the Kree blood as we see his foil for season 2 is similarly affected. Interestingly though, Daisy/Skye doesn’t have nearly the same amount of negative effects—a result of being an Inhuman in all likelihood.

Honestly, S.H.I.E.L.D. is just terrible at keeping secrets

I think it’s more interesting though to theorize that being stabbed in the chest near his heart by Loki’s staff is actually the true catalyst for sending him down this chaotic path. As we see in “Avengers”, even though the staff in an inanimate object has the ability to drive people near it into wrathful paranoia and irritability. Not only that, it also has the ability to control/change the hearts of humans. Maybe the wrath and chaotic nature of Loki was somehow imprinted on Coulson during his murder by the trickster; and then by not being allowed to die by Nick Fury, that imprint was able to fester and grow in Coulson until it will ultimately consume his entire personality.

Or at least not a long-term problem.

Which could mean that he would become the villain at the end of the series before Daisy/Skye becomes the Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., like she does in the comics—an interesting thought since the very last scene with Coulson at the end of season 3 shows that he is hunting Daisy/Skye.

And yet so sassy.

So is Phil Coulson a lousy leader, or was he just given an impossible task to reform S.H.I.E.L.D.? Did you notice a personality shift between the movies and the appearance in AOS? As the director of S.H.I.E.L.D., is Phil Coulson bringing the world together or simply acting like a chaotic force that creates as often as it destroys?

Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below. And as always, thanks for subscribing.

The Four Biggest Differences In “X-Men Phase 1” vs “X-Men Phase 2”

In 2016 we have been gifted with the opportunity to live in the world that literally has a glut of X-men movies. As of right now there nine live-action X-men movies including the Phase 1 Trilogy, Phase 2 Trilogy, two Wolverine movies and of course the highly successful Deadpool movie. The latest movie released was the final installment of the Phase 2 project that came out in theaters under the title of “X-men: Apocalypse”. Now that Phase 2 is complete, the differences between the two phases can be readily seen. Here are the four biggest differences I found in the two phases—excluding the non-trilogy movies of Wolverine and Deadpool—and how these differences have changed the X-men franchise.

Scale of the Calamity

The easiest change to track is of course the sheer scale of the threats that face the X-men in each phase. Phase 1 comes off to viewers as being incredibly localized to the United States, and features many of the climatic scenes within those borders. Phase 1 takes place almost without exception within the borders of the USA on the eastern seaboard; whilst the Phase 2 project runs around the world almost as if it’s afraid of its own shadow.

Movie	Boss Battle Location
Phase 1
X-men	Ellis Island, USA
X2	Alkali Dam, Alberta Canada
X-Men: The Last Stand	San Francisco
Phase 2
X-men: First Class	Cuba
X-men: Days of Future Past	Tibetan Temple/ Washington DC
X-men: Apocalypse	Egypt

 

The result is that the severity of each crisis in the Phase 2 series seems much higher—especially with the first movie in Phase 2 happening to coincide with the Cuban Missile crisis. Additionally, in Days of Futures Past the assassination was referenced as being influenced by mutants, and Apocalypse heavily references the Cold War and happens to occur the same year that Ronald Reagan begins his “Star Wars” initiative to intercept enemy missiles fired at the USA.

Rogue has a thing for Republicans? Well, I guess she IS from the south..

Emotional Themes

The emotional themes are pretty different as well for each trilogy. In phase 1 the audience follows Wolverine through his journey of self-discovery, joining a team and oh yeah—romancing the pants off of Jean Grey before killing her in the finale. In fact the romantic arc between Wolverine, Jean Grey and Cyclops is a pretty central emotional theme for the trilogy and it largely what binds each movie to the next.

Jean: That’s it, I’m switching to only women.

In contrast Phase 2 follows Charles Xavier through his journey of self-discovery, creating a team and family. Shockingly, not that different from Phase 1 apart from the emphasis on familial love instead of romantic/sexual love. Even though during the first movie of Phase 2 Xavier is seen pursuing plenty of women for some sexual connections, the real theme the audience is presented with is the idea that Xavier and Raven (AKA Mystique) have a strained sibling relationship even after Mystique is adopted into the family.

This idea of familial love is not only more palatable—seriously Wolverine “no” means no and you’re coming off super rapey—but also more relatable. Many people have experienced tensions within their own family, or adoptive family, i.e. friends.

Brady Bunch:The Lost Years

Xavier’s Leadership

Deadpool gets it.

Xavier’s leadership also is presented in different styles as well. In Phase 1 he is often shown as a collected and wise figure, whereas in Phase 2 is often brash and controlling. This seems to be a prime example of Xavier be presented as an “Ideal” leader versus Phase 2 wherein he is presented as a “Flawed” leader.

This makes a lot of sense in the context of these films because in Phase 1 conflicts are fairly black and white with little room for moral flexibility. In Phase 2 that moral ambiguity is greatly expanded, and that expansion can be seen in Xavier’s personal style. Even though he is often trying to the right thing, to an uninformed witness his actions would seem militant.

Phase 1 shows the calm and collected, of “logical” version of Xavier. It’s interesting to note that the parallels between Charles Xavier and Martin Luther King Jr are no accident, so he often appears calm in Phase 1 and promoting non-violence and human-to-mutant cooperation. However, just like the leader of the Civil Rights movement, Xavier also teaches his followers to be prepared to defend themselves if necessary just as the great MLK Jr allegedly used to have many guns in his home. Even though Xavier pseudo acts as MLK Jr, it’s important to remember that it is still a very reductionist interpretation of MLK Jr into a more brand-able icon that can be easily recognized even when white-washed and paralyzed.

Ideology? I’m pretty sure they even used his same suit.

What’s intriguing about Phase 2 is that the moviemakers walk away from the white-washed version of MLK Jr and instead present the audience with a very flawed leader. For this reason alone, Charles Xavier is far more relatable than in the original trilogy where he simply serves as a remote symbol of ideology.  Instead Charles struggles to do right, even though he’s not always able to fully understand what the better path might be.

Villains

Get it? The eye-holes are glasses–do you get it? So clever.

Just as Xavier is seen as a MLK Jr figure, Magneto is often a Malcolm X figure—though just as reductionist. In Phase 1 the villains have a very low empathy quotient, whereas villains in Phase 2 are very relatable. Take Magneto for instance. In Phase 1, Magneto is very reminiscent of someone who has an Antisocial Personality Disorder—meaning in this case he has very little empathy for those around him and often uses people are tools. This is evident when he callously uses Rogue in a manner that could potentially kill her, and also when he abandons Mystique after she becomes injured.

In Phase 2, Magneto is much more sympathetic—even though we see him murder more people onscreen in this trilogy and murder more graphically. Part of this is due to the audience being able to witness the horrific emotional pain that Magneto experiences throughout his life. And ultimately, even though his methods are virtually the same, understanding his motives makes for a far more interesting character. In fact he almost seems cursed into being the fri-enemy of Charles as a result of his family consistently dying on him in a semi-regular basis at the hands of humans. In Phase 2, he even walks away from his terrorist activities to have a family and live in peace  under the tenants that Xavier teaches, before that is violently ripped away in front of his very eyes. He tries so hard to do the just and tolerant lifestyle, but the universe simply will not allow him to exist in peace with happiness for very long.

This idea of cosmic cruelty in contrast to simply choosing evil extremism breathes life into the character, who in Phase 1 was simply a two-dimensional foil.

Do you think that Phase 1 and 2 of the X-men franchise are significantly different? Do you think they can even be differentiated at all? Or did you feel like Phase 2 was simply a rerun attempting to correct the mistakes from Phase 1?

Don’t think I forgot about you Faux-nix!

Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below, and thanks for subscribing.

4 Things I Loved About CA: Civil War and The Art of Deceptive Film Trailer Editing

4 Things I Loved About “Captain America: Civil War” and The Art of Deceptive Film Trailer Editing
May 16^th, 2016

Featuring: all the action!

Having watched every trailer I could get my hands on for Captain America: Civil War I had really thought that I was prepared for the upcoming movie. What surprised me though, was that much of what the trailers had led me to believe was entirely misdirection. Before I get into the details, here is the official SPOILER ALERT for anything passed this point in the article. Continue at your own risk if you have not seen the movie—I tried to warn you.

1. Who Shot First?

Probably the biggest misdirection was the shooting of War Machine, which frankly many people saw coming. In the trailer, viewers are led to believe that Bucky has fired a weapon that brings War Machine out of the sky and severely injures him. This cut style of “shooting weapon” to “shot victim” has popped up before in other trailers, such as DC’s Dawn of Justice. In that scenario the trailer was also misleading about the context of the footage, and I’m thinking that we will see this technique utilized more often.

And honestly, using this technique might be due to necessity in order to keep plot details obfuscated from future viewers. With information available instantaneously at our fingertips (and more importantly a large population of Millennials who know how to utilize it) it’s easier to snatch scripts and/or dig up original source material for details. So honestly I understand the use of this misdirection—but a savvy viewer will be able to pick out the discrepancies anyway.

Honestly the editors apply this method in a second way as well, when glimpses of the snowy hydra base fight are shown. The editing in the trailer does make it seem like Captain America (Steve) and Bucky are the aggressors—especially since for most of the trailer peek, viewers see Iron Man on his knees. Not only on his knees, but in a two-against-one fight.

Not the Captain America gang-bang I’d ask for either

2. Chopped Dialogue

Probably one of the biggest surprises was the chopped up dialogue in the trailer that honestly does sound like a conversation pulled from the film.

Jesus Aunt May, dust or something!

Trailer:
Captain America: This doesn’t have to end in a fight, Tony.

Movie:
Captain America: This doesn’t have to end in a fight, Bucky.

The trailer cuts away when the name is spoken at the end, but it is literally such a smooth edit that I didn’t even see this dialogue change coming. Honestly, upon watching the trailer I had thought that Tony and Captain America were talking in Peter Parker’s poor house for some reason—possibly trying to sway the teen. Having it turn out to be Bucky’s decrepit hideout instead was such a great surprise.

3. Scarlet Witch’s Reaction

Scarlet Witch: Why am I here again? Oh yeah … the murders.

Clever editing also really ended up surprising me in the scene where footage of Avenger brawling destruction in the trailer made it seem like Scarlet Witch was overwrought with emotion of seeing her homeland being destroyed when in actuality it was due to guilt upon viewing her collateral damage in Africa.

4. Choosing Heroism Over Vengeance

Probably the best hidden plot detail was laying in plain sight. From the trailer, viewers could gather a couple things: Black Panther had a serious beef with Bucky, and that Black Panther also witnesses a terrorist attack. Because the actual root/antagonist was completely absent from all the trailers it was really hard to predict just how things would play out between Buck and Black Panther.

I haven’t seen a cat have this much of a hate-on for something since those cat vs cucumber videos

However, Black Panther’s story arc is arguably the best and most dynamic one seen in the movie. We see him rise from an emotional prince driven only by the thought of revenge to a nobler leader and protector of Wakanda who understands the need for justice in a world that is often unjust.  Even the story arc of Captain American and Iron Man isn’t as emotionally drastic as to essentially change a core characteristic of a character during the film. Essentially, Steve and Tony remain the same people they start out as and their differences drive them apart until time can heal the wounds in the friendship.

All in all, I loved how deceptive the trailers were for this movie. As a hobby, I often over analyze trailers and can piece together plots before the movies even come out (for instance, I think I’ve gotten Suicide Squad sussed out) so being surprised—truly surprised—is always a great experience for me.

So do you think the artistic license in editing for the trailers was fair, or changed the expectations for the movie too much? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.

3 Reasons Why “Superman Vs Batman: Dawn Of Justice” Was Actually Innovative

#Fe

 

There has been such a negative reception of this movie Superman vs Batman: Dawn of Justice (DOJ) that it has literally sparked reshoots for other DC franchises for fear that the other movie–Suicide Squad–might be too similar to DOJ and also experience a bad reception.

However, I think that much of this was due to viewers’ preconceptions.

Obviously there is going to be spoilers ahead, so don’t say I didn’t warn you.

 

1. DOJ is the First Post-Millennial Super-Hero movie to NOT be a Comic Opera

For many viewers, it was expected that DOJ would be another action movie for the DC Cinematic Universe (DCCU). We have been shamelessly primed by the powerhouse of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) for action movies, that when we see DC/Warner Bros. trying something new it caused many to recoil. And what DC was attempting with DOJ was to have a more literary interpretation of the subject; i.e. super heroes.

To give better context, we can compare DCCU and MCU to Science fiction and Space Opera. Now you might be asking yourself what is a Space Opera? Well, one of the most famous and successful franchises ever is a space opera: Star Wars. In contrast a Science fiction movie would be more like “The Martian”.

Note: when I was first throwing this idea around, I was originally mislabeling DOJ as the first Comic Opera, when in fact my research has shown that it actually if the first movie to not be an opera per definition.

According to Wikipedia science fiction can be interpreted as “a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a ‘literature of ideas.’”

On the other end of the spectrum, Wikipedia has this to say about Space Operas: “a subgenre of science fiction that often emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, usually involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced abilities, weapons, and other technology. The term has no relation to music but is instead a play on the term ‘soap opera’.”

What I find interesting is how well the MCU fits into the description of the space opera—or in this case Comic Opera. Many of the MCU movies fail to deal with the consequences of the existence of super heroes beyond the superficial level experienced by the heroes themselves. If anything is mentioned about the experience of the normal people in the universe, is only done so in brief passing. Most of the movies are spent glamorizing the romantic side of being superhuman: awesome powers/abilities, glorification of violence, and the victory of the righteous over perceived evil.

 

DOJ on the other hand spends probably near 75% of the movie agonizing over the idea of Superman’s existence, and what ripple effect he has had on the lives of every day citizens. For that matter, Superman questions the validity of his own actions often as well as whether or not his only peer—Batman—is doing more harm than good. In fact, for a movie that is titled for an action sequence, there is very little action because so much time is spent on the ideologies and realities of having to live within that universe. Which brings me to my next point…

2. This is Actually not an “Action” Movie—it’s a “Drama” Movie

Yeah, even though it’s titled for a battle sequence this movie concentrates more on the tone of drama than on the subject of action. But let’s take a good look by what is meant by “action” and what is meant by “drama”.

Drama:	Action:
–          Serious tone –          Character driven –          Emphasis on plot lines –          Political/Philosophical issues –          Centralized settings	–          Manic tone –          Action driven –          Intense fight scenes –          Righteous issues –          Goal-oriented settings

Both styles of movie can not only be entertaining on their own, but have been successfully mixed in other movies, however in DOJ there seems to be a clear distinction that the movie is more concerned with dramatic elements than it is with the action elements. Instead of being taken from scene to scene mostly by action, the viewer for DOJ is provoked into thought about the philosophical issues that are raised.

Here are some of the issues that DOJ addresses extensively:

• Can titular super heroes have normal lives? Getting married for instance.
• Can super heroes have relationships with normal people, wherein they each are equal?
• How unrealistic is it to expect privacy as a super hero?
• Is it realistic to expect forces of “good” to get along with each other and agree on everything?
• Does having a hero at your disposal make you more likely to endanger yourself and others?
• Because you can intervene, should you intervene?
• Who are heroes ultimately accountable to?
• Is it psychologically healthy to have the need to be a hero?

Using MCU as the standard for comic book adaptations, it is very clearly seen that titular characters are not allowed to experience married life. The closest we see to a “married” character is Hawkeye, who is not only not a titular character with his own movie, but he also does not seem to spend very much time with his family either. It’s almost as if he only sees his wife briefly between missions to keep her impregnated. And even though Black Widow alludes to a close relationship with his family, Hawkeye literally separates an entire portion of his life and an entire portion of his identity away from them. His family will never actually get to see him, only the superficial portion he chooses to share. All other MCU relationships never make it passed dating, and even if they do the female of the relationship often gets “fridged”.

But in DOJ, not only do we see the titular Superman enjoying a seeming normal and healthy relationship with his live-in girlfriend Lois Lane, but he also is revealed to have been about to propose marriage to her before he was temporarily killed. And in their relationship, they have equal emotional footing with each other, whereas many movies—I’m looking at you all 5 Spiderman movies—if the titular character gets with the girl, she if often an overly-emotional, strife-causing trophy.

All these ideas are hugely philosophical and can been subtly seen being represented by a painting in the background of Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne meeting. This painting is called “A balance of Terror” by Clean Peterson, and the theme of it is that absolute power corrupts. What better example is there of absolute power than the people who gain super human abilities and deem themselves to be the hands of justice in the world without any sort of power-check. This painting literally has too many symbolic elements in each figure for me to get into further without that painting alone absorbing this whole post.

Additionally, it is fair to state that the viewer is also provoked into thought over the issues that are not expressly brought up by the movie.

To get into that, let’s talk about murder.

 

3. Straight-up Murder

Holy Civilian Murder Batman!

No seriously. As we saw in “The Man of Steel”, the predecessor of this film it was alluded to that Superman actually murdered civilians while in effort to stop General Zod. Not only that, the collateral damage he caused was tremendous, and cost the lives of hundreds of people who were not personally involved with Zod and Superman.

But I digress because the real issue is that freaking Batman breaks his cardinal rule in DOJ: no killing. During a chase scene in Gotham, while Batman is chasing Luther’s mercenaries for some of that sweet, sweet kryptonite he totally murders some people without flinching. In this scene he disables an enemy car that is full of people, hooks it with a tow line, and then flips it upside down on a second car full of people in a way that leaves very little room for hopes of survival.

And as far as collateral deaths go, every criminal Batman freaking brands with hot metal is essentially given a death sentence as stated by characters in the film. The only one who seems to have any qualms about that issue is Superman himself, everyone else seems to shrug it off as if the deaths of those imprisoned are of no consequence. In the car-chase alone though, it seems like Batman kills at least a dozen people, this is clearly not the usual Bruce Wayne Batman we are used to, but much more like the deeply troubled Thomas Wayne seen in alternate universes.

Also like the alternate universe Thomas Wayne Batman, this DCCU Bruce Wayne uses guns as Batman. Even the way that Batman is first introduced—fighting crime in an apparent sweatshop—taps into the point of view civilians have of Batman: superstitious fear and bordering on a horror-movie antagonist introduction. Not even the darkest moments of Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe even compares to the first few minutes of suspense of character introduction represented at that sweatshop in Gotham. DCCU clearly thinks he would have more likely have chosen to follow an alternate development similar Thomas Wayne and a different set of ethos.

That’s a HUGE departure from conventional comic movies that the MCU has conditioned viewers to expect. I can’t think of a single MCU movie where a hero purposefully murdered anyone. Even though this isn’t expressly addressed by the movie—as far as Batman’s contributions goes—it has clearly disturbed fans who expect the righteous hero arc wherein the caped crusader keeps their hands clean of killing. This darker, more violent atmosphere could also be why it was rumored that DOJ might seek an R-rating to follow Deadpool’s example.

All-in-all, DOJ has a lot more in common with “the Watchmen” than it does with the previous franchises DC/Warner Bros. has housed. In previous movies, the PG-13 rating meant that Superman and Batman never really killed anyone, despite how dark the tone of the movie got. Yes, they might have simply not acted, thus not preventing a death of an enemy, but the titular characters did not actively murder people—until the DCCU. Alternatively, in “the Watchmen” we see that the heroes are flawed not just ideologically, but ethically as well. In one scene, the Comedian—arguably not only the catalyst for the movie but also the scene-stealer—murders his pregnant former lover, while remaining somehow sympathetic. This theme of a sympathetic murderer is seen to a lesser degree in the DCCU with DOJ. Frankly though I don’t think either of these heroes has a strong enough personality to remain likable as killers.

So was Superman vs Batman: Dawn of Justice actually surreptitiously an innovative and more literary dissection of comics than Marvel Cinematic Universe counterparts that audiences have been fattened on previously? Or do you think DCCU has possibly just taken itself too seriously and taken the fun out of these Comic Operas that audiences have been devouring since the 2008 MCU starter “Ironman”? Were audiences just dismayed at getting a drama when trailers sold them on an action flick that didn’t exist? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.