Comic Book Movies (How to do it the right way)

So 2012 was a year of Super Hero Comic Book Movies huh?  Let's see we had Nolan's conclusion to The Dark Knight trilogy, the Ghost Rider sequel (sidenote: the guy who wrote that is now heading up AMC's The Walking Dead, because once again, AMC doesn't want to pay people to make good shows, they favor just pawning it off to a guy who wrote the sequel to Ghost Rider), The Amazing(ly sucktackular) Spider Man, that other super hero movie that had all those guys fighting a lame villain, and a movie probably none of you have seen Dredd.  Which is a shame, because out of all of those, Dredd was the best super hero movie of the year.  Seriously, the best super hero movie of the year, was one that nobody saw.  Now that's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises, or The Avengers, weren't good, I enjoyed them, but I should note they are not without their flaws.  The Dark Knight Rises, could have started at the scene where Batman and Catwoman went into the tunnels to find Bane, and it would have been way better.  I felt the first hour of that movie was just fluff to show off Catwoman, err, I mean Selina Kyle, since they never really called her Catwoman.  The Avengers was a great popcorn movie, where you can watch and not have to think, and just shovel popcorn into your mouth while a bunch of stuff explodes on screen, and then someone says a funny one liner.  As far as a great Super Hero movie, it does hit that bar, but only because it's the first movie of its kind, where there is a bunch of super heroes running around fighting aliens.

So now I should probably explain why Dredd was the best comic book/super hero movie of the year right?  Okay then, to do this, I'm going to use a comparison with Dredd against a movie you probably saw The Amazing Spiderman.  The reason why is simple, both of them are remakes, and one sucked, and one did not.  So let's look at the originals for a moment, to see where this all began.  Judge Dredd was a god awful Sylvester Stallone film that came out in 1995.  Based on the comic of the same name, the worst decision they made, was letting Sylvester Stallone and the studio make the decisions.  Why was Rob Schneider in that movie you ask? Because the studio felt he needed to be the comic relief in the film, which Stallone was not a fan of.  So why did that movie suck? Well if you've seen it, you know it's cheesy, over dramatic, and one of Stallone's worst films (Wait, what is a good Stallone movie, besides Tango & Cash?), and it has a line from the comic where Stallone grumbles, or stumbles, through the Stallone draw of, "I am the law!"  I bring that up, because the line is also used in Dredd, but to much better effectiveness, which I will get to later.  Spider Man on the other hand, was a great movie.  I actually mean that too, Sam Raimi was able to do a great origin story, which you don't normally see done well, except the Raimi Spider Man, and Nolan's Batman.  Raimi's Spider Man was a good movie, because it was able to draw you into the Spider Man universe, while sympathizing with nerdy Peter Parker, and cheering for him to beat the Green Goblin and save the city.

So what makes a good super hero movie to begin with? Well let me tell you, a real good superhero movie DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN.  Yup, let me say that again, you DO NOT need an ORIGIN movie for superheroes.  But how are we suppose to know about them? Well if you are going to do a super hero or comic book movie, you probably are already a fan, and know the story.  But didn't I just say the Nolan Batman Trilogy, and Sam Raimi's Spiderman were good? Yes, it is true you can do a good super hero origin movie, but they don't all need to be. Example, Tim Burton's 1989 Batman.  Sure there is mention of how Bruce Wayne became Batman, through Vicky Vale's investigation, and through flashbacks, but for the most part, it was Batman versus Joker.  If anything, Tim Burton's Batman showed a perfect prototype for a great super hero or comic book movie, instead of harping on the origin of the hero, the movie should focus on the origin or creation of the villain.  Because isn't the villain really the source of all the conflict in the super hero movies? And if it's already a stable comic book franchise, the majority of people going to see a comic book movie at the very least are familiar in some way with the characters, setting, etc.  If not, that's what a movie trailer is for!  If you don't believe me, take a look at the Batman Animated Series.  That show was picked up from the guys making just the introduction to the show, with Batman chasing after bank robbers on rooftops, yet there is no title, or saying of Batman, because they figured that everyone would know what this show was about just from that.  They didn't pander to the audience, they catered to it, giving people what they wanted.  Each episode was a half hour movie, that's it, no more no less (yes some were two parters, but now you're getting into semantics). It was only into the third or fourth season that the title was changed into The Adventures of Batman and Robin, but that was only because Warner Bros. Studio forced that upon them, along with a long list of rules involving kids, which I probably will do a post about how stupid studio execs are sometimes, considering they ruined that show, because of one dumb line of logic: Kids only will watch shows with kids in them, hence Robin needs to be in every episode, but he can't be put in harm's way, or harm people, or other kids can't be harmed, and on and on and on, seriously.  Now I can tell you I would have fit under the category of a kid when this show was being run, and I hated any episode that had Robin in it, because it wasn't going to be Batman anymore.  Now you might be saying that this is all ridiculous, Batman Begins was an awesome movie and it was all about an origin.  Yes that's true and it makes total sense with the way that Nolan did it, but again let's look at the facts, Nolan came in with an idea to do a trilogy for them, and the studio let him do it, without interfering, I'm sure on some level they did, but for the most part, I'm sure Nolan was able to do what he wanted with those movies.  But to counter that point I ask this question, what was a better overall movie Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight? My guess is the majority of people are going to say The Dark Knight.  Why? Oh let's see, cause we already knew who Batman was, so you could just get right into him fighting the Joker, and low and behold, a super hero movie that isn't bound to doing an origin is free to get to the real source material.  Because shocker to all you fans of Christopher Nolan's Batman films, ALL of his ideas that were put into those movies, were like a greatest hits collection of ideas from a plethora of Batman comics and storylines.  You mean Nolan ripped them off? Yes, and no, he took ideas and molded them to fit his story, which honestly, is what any good writer does, even Shakespeare did that with his stories to give you some frame of reference.  Now you might say, but Nolan didn't do anything on the Joker's origin, shouldn't he have done that?  Possibly, but it wasn't the origin of the Joker Nolan focused on, but rather the origin of Two-Face.  If you think about it, The Dark Knight, was all about Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face.  Again, the better comic book movie focuses on the villain's origin, and not the hero.  And if all of that isn't enough, for anyone who has seen it, knows that X-Men Origins:  Wolverine was a terrible movie that did not need to be made, 'nuff said.

So let's finally dig into this comparison.  First of all let's start with The Amazing Spider Man, which was directed by Marc Webb, who's previous directing credits include 500 Days of Summer,  and some music videos for bands like No Doubt, 3 Doors Down, and Green Day, so that gives you some kind of idea of how high quality a filmmaker Mr. Webb is.  Now I have not seen his 500 Days of Summer, but I'm sure it sucked. Also who thought giving a guy who's only real directing job was on a romantic comedy (which I'm sure was not funny) a job directing a super hero movie?  Then you have the writing team of the guy who wrote all the Harry Potter screenplays, a guy who's been writing since 1956 whose credits include the Raimi Spider Man sequels, and a guy who wrote The Rundown, you know The Rock and Stifler in the rainforest.  The wonders of Hollywood.  So why did The Amazing Spider Man suck?  First of all, did this movie really even need to be made?  Didn't we just have to labor through the crappy third Sam Raimi Spider Man film just a few years ago?  (Notice I have not knocked on Sam Raimi's third Spider Man movie, only because I don't think that was his fault, I think that movie is a product of too many studio execs putting their input over Raimi, and it's not like he really has a choice other than to say, "Any other shitty plot device you would like me to put in there, guy who signs my check?")  Apparently five years is long enough to warrant a reboot.  So now it's Marc Webb's turn to try this out and what does he do? Well let's see, he turns Peter Parker into a dick, yeah Peter Parker is an asshole in this movie, seriously, just watch how he interacts with Aunt May and Uncle Ben.  Oh and now in this movie, Peter Parker rides a skateboard, wow, that's so like, relating to the youth of America, cause Peter Parker rides a skateboard now.  I wouldn't have so much a problem with this, if they literally did not have scenes in the film where in one shot he doesn't have a skateboard, then in the next shot he's carrying it around, that's just lazy.  Another problem with this movie, was everyone was pretty much a one dimensional character.  Yes you can say Peter does go through a change, but it's an origin movie, someone has to change, but other than that, everyone else is just stereotypical characters. Gwen, the love interest, is the cute next door girl with  a bit of sass, and her father, played by Denis Leary is the Captain or whatever in the police department, that is a stereotypical hard nose veteran cop, and so on with Peter Parker's Aunt and Uncle.  The one funny thing that I noticed, was the bully Flash, goes from bullying Parker, to a scene where after Peter's Uncle had been killed, Flash came up to genuinely express his condolences, and Peter just acts like an asshole.   So Peter is an angst ridden angry skateboarding teen who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, and soon becomes Spider Man.  A really cool (cough) idea Marc Webb had was to show a first person perspective of Peter running, jumping, and webslinging around rooftops, but it just looked like a cartoon, it wasn't real.  So not only are we treated with Peter trying to master his new powers, we  also are treated to an origin story of the villain in this movie which is the Lizard. I really had no problem with this choice, cause I'm okay with a giant CGI villain when it's fantastical like a giant angry lizard, but that was until his plan is revealed.  Here's the problem I have with all the super hero movies of late, and this includes The Amazing Spider Man, The Avengers, The Dark  Knight Rises, is that the villain(s) in all these movies, their evil plan is to detonate some kind of bomb ie TDKR, or opening a portal to open up to an alien army, ie The Avengers, or detonating a biological weapon that turns everyone into a lizard, ie The Amazing Spider Man.  Can't anyone in Hollywood think of something else? Why couldn't the Lizard, who finds out Peter's identity, just try and go after his loved ones, and just have an epic game of cat and mouse? I'm sure there could be a way to create some great tension, hunting after each other in the sewers, if it was made like a creature movie, such as The Relic.  Resulting in a street top brawl, where Peter saves a bunch of citizens and stops the Lizard, instead of Peter must stop the bomb.  We've seen it all before, you watch this, and you know that it's not going to go off, if you want to use that plot device, I'd like to see it where it actually does explode, then what, huh Hollywood?  Here's an idea for a Spider Man movie, instead of just trying to throw a bunch of ideas in there, take one good comic storyline and make that into a movie, such as the most popular Spider Man storyline of Venom, and do that as a movie.  Didn't Topher Grace play that already? Yes, but how much of that was an afterthought.  Hollywood is trying to cram in just way too much stuff into these movies, sometimes one villain is more than enough.  So in the next Marc Webb Spider Man movie Jamie Foxx is playing Electro.  Whether you like Jamie Foxx or not, I could care less how he plays Electro, because I think that's one of the dumbest villains in all of the Marvel Universe.  But wait, it needs more! Apparently Paul Giamatti is in talks to play the Rhino.  So you've already got one super villain, we need more?  This is ridiculous.  Honestly, if you want to make a great Spider Man movie(s), the only good way of putting a bunch of villains together, is to follow the Sinister Six storyline.  Or if you want to do Venom in a big way, you could follow the Maximum Carnage storyline, where you could have not just Venom, but Carnage as well.  Instead we are treated to Electro and Rhino.  Sweet a guy who shoots lightning, and a big Russian idiot in armor, can't wait to see how brooding angry teenage Spider Man deals with them, yawn.  Gee, I wonder if Electro will have a big electrical doo hickey that will threaten New York, and Spidey must stop, so that he can kiss Mary Jane, do you see where I'm going with this?

So then why was Dredd such a great movie you ask?  First of all, Dredd was directed by Pete Travis, who's previous directing credits include Vantage Point and Endgame.  While the screenplay was written by Alex Garland, who's previous credits include a movie called 28 Days Later... So which team would you like to have making a movie, a guy who directed music videos with a really cheezy writing team, or a guy who has at least some experience in action suspense films, with a writer who was able to bring back the whole zombie stuff everyone seems to love right now?

Let's take a look at the comic universes.  We are all pretty familiar with Spider Man's universe, nerdy, I'm sorry, I mean skateboarding punk, asshole teenager, Peter Parker, becomes Spider Man, and uses his powers for good to save New York City against a bunch of super criminals.   Judge Dredd takes place in a post apocalyptic world where the vast majority of the population lives in huge cities called oddly enough, Mega City 1, and so forth.  So as much as New York plays a big part of the Spider Man movies, Mega City 1 also plays a big part in these movies.  In this huge future cities, crime runs rampant, and to help speed along due process Judges serve as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, shelving out sentences there on the spot, no trial needed.  All of this is conveyed in the opening part of the movie, no origin necessary, Mega City 1 is introduced, Judge Dredd rolls up on some bad guys, and dispenses justice.

That's all you need to know about Judge Dredd, there is no backstory, no origin of how Dredd became a Judge, because all of that doesn't matter, Dredd is a judge, and he's a badass, move along.  In fact, what I really loved about this movie, is a point could be made that Judge Dredd, isn't even the real protagonist in the story.  The real meat of this story begins after the opening sequence where Dredd is called back into the Hall of Justice to meet with his supervisor.  There he is introduced to a rookie who is only let in on the merits of her being an anomaly, or mutant in Dredd's universe, as she is a psychic, able to read people's minds.  Because of her talents, they feel she can be a valuable asset to them, but because of her low test scores, they want to give her a trial run, hence where Dredd comes in.  Really Dredd is a combination of two movies, Training Day, and The Raid:  Redemption.  I'm assuming most people know the plot of Training Day, where as Redemption is a movie about a swat team going into a gangster's apartment complex, and getting trapped inside, with no back up, or a way out.

At this point, I would like to address the cast in Dredd.  Karl Urban, who you may know as the new Bones in JJ Abrams Star Trek, or the guy from that god awful video game movie Doom, plays Judge Dredd.  I cannot say enough, of what a great job Karl Urban did in this film.  First of all, how many actors in Hollywood star in a movie and never shows his face? Does Christian Bale wear the cape and cowl through then entire movie? Hell even Heath Ledger made an appearance in TDK without Joker makeup, but not Karl Urban.  Only in the very beginning of the film do you see Judge Dredd suiting up, but even then you don't see his whole face, and from that point on, his helmet never comes off, not once.  As awesome as I think that is, it's not even the best part of his character.  The one thing that annoyed the ever living hell out of me, in all of Nolan's Batman films, was Christian Bale's stupid growly Batman voice.  Seriously, I cringe every time Bale spouts out a line as Batman, especially in the scenes where he's talking to himself, or with someone that already knows his identity, and he still talks in that rough growly voice.  I can understand where he is coming with that, wanting to mask his voice, blah blah, but there is a way to change your voice without sounding like Batman is constantly constipated with a hemorrhoid and a migraine.  Two reasons that can prove that point, Michael Keaton and Kevin Conroy.  Conroy more than anyone, because he was able to differentiate Bruce Wayne's voice and Batman's voice making them sound completely different, while not sounding like a ridiculous asshole (Don't forget the infamous Christian Bale going off recording).  If you don't believe me watch Dredd, yes Karl Urban does do a rough growling voice, but it's not over the top, it actually feels like that's just how Dredd talks.  Especially, when it comes to the line of, "I am the law," is done beautifully, not only vocally, but contextually too, because it actually makes sense, instead of Stallone just using it as a one liner to sound tough.

The other actress that really made this movie is Olivia Thirlby, whose previous works include the movie Juno.  She plays the rookie cop Anderson, with psychic powers that is taken out on a trial run with Judge Dredd.  I say that Anderson could easily be the protagonist in this movie, because she is the only character that seems to go through a change.  Nothing against the Judge Dredd character, but there's nothing really that needs to change Dredd, just like Wolverine is Wolverine, Dredd is Judge Dredd, 'nuff said.  Unlike Dredd, Thirlby never wears a helmet, "It affects my psychic powers," she says.  Also you will notice that once Dredd and Anderson are introduced, Anderson is the one that directs the action, where to go, what to do, as Dredd is just a training officer, evaluating her.  To fellow writers out there, notice how every line of dialogue, and every scene is important to the story.  There is nothing in this story that is just thrown in there to be thrown in, ie., there is a scene where there are some kids skateboarding, where you don't really think anything of it at first, but unlike Spider Man, those kids skateboarding actually do come into play at some point in the story, not in any major way mind you, but enough, that it conveys that if you put something in a movie, it should have reason behind it, not just because some demographic needs this kind of stuff in it, so they will purchase a movie ticket.

So is having another character, who is not the hero, being the protagonist in a super hero movie necessarily a bad thing? Not in my opinion.  Take a look at the animated movie Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's comic.  Again, if you ask me, Jim Gordon is the main protagonist of that movie, as most of it is seen through his perspective, where Batman is important to the story, but he's not the main character of the movie.  Does that mean I want to see a Batman movie where Batman is not the main character? Not very likely, but that's not to say it couldn't be done.  Now I know if I catch flack for anything it's going to be this.  Take a Superman movie, to be honest, I always had a problem with Superman, because he always seemed pretty invincible, except for obviously kryptonite, not much can stop him.  Well where is the conflict?  Where are the stakes? Everyone knows Superman is going to save the day.  So why not make a Superman movie, where maybe it's Lois Lane being the protagonist?  She's someone we can end up relating to, while still being able to enjoy Superman saving the day.  I know sounds weird right?  But if done correctly, could make for a really good  movie.

Also, while I'm griping about Superman movies, here's my biggest problem with them.  Now I'm not talking about Christopher Reeve Superman, I actually think those movies are great, at least the first two, as I don't care for any of the others.  Singer's Superman sucked, cause uh, well, nothing really happened that we hadn't seen before, although I will say Kevin Spacey played an awesome Lex Luthor, and I wish Spacey would play more villains.  But even the new Superman by Zach Snyder, which I'm sure will be enjoyable, the one thing that annoys me about the Superman movies, is where the hell are the huge monsters for Superman to fight, leveling entire cities in the process?  Seriously, we now have the technology to do this,  I mean hell if Michael Bay can do it with Transformers, why can't we see a super hero movie with huge epic Godzilla style city fights (Thank you del Toro for Pacific Rim!)?  Yeah the Avengers kind of did it, but again, that movie was all about the heroes, and no one cared about the villain.  Seriously, did anyone look and go, oh man that Loki, he was awesome like Heath Ledger's Joker? I would say he was the lamest villain ever, but I think that title goes to the first Hulk movie with mutant poodles and Nick Nolte.  Yet another reason why did that Hulk movie suck so much? Cause there was no villain!

Back to Dredd and Anderson being the protagonist.  So as Anderson and Dredd set out on their Training Day, the rookie picks the call, and sets out to what I assume is just another day for Judge Dredd, albeit one of his worst, but we are watching a movie right?  It can't just be Judge Dredd dulling out parking tickets for two hours.   So at this point I won't go much more into detail as anyone that is reading this, I do hope this convinces you to spend your money or at least convince another friend to see this movie, but I will prove to you how Anderson is the main protagonist in this movie.  As the action picks up in the movie, Anderson is put into a situation where she is called out by Dredd to execute a suspect who just shot at them, who is reaching for a gun.  She hesitates as he begs for mercy, but after some reluctance, Anderson pulls the trigger and puts one through his head.  In the next scene, a tenant saves Dredd and Anderson, and in this scene, that only lasts for a few moments, you will feel more for the Anderson character, than you will after two whole hours of angry teenage Peter Parker.  Later on in the movie, it's very quick, you might not even notice it at first, but your brain will, at the end when Anderson and Dredd go to confront the main villain in this movie, there is a henchman on the ground, reaching for a gun, and Anderson walks up, shoots him in the back, and keeps moving without hesitation.  Now that's not everything, but it's a small microcosm of the change her character goes through, without it being hammered into the viewer.  Subtlety does have its impact, not all audience members are idiots, and Hollywood should stop catering to them.  If people are too stupid to get smart movies, then they shouldn't watch them.  Hollywood's biggest mistake nowadays is trying to create movies that everyone will  go see.  That's not what movies should be, movies should be something that caters to people who like that movie.

Lastly, as I said there is no origin for Judge Dredd in Dredd, but there is an origin of the villain played by Lena Headey, who you are probably familiar with as the evil incestuous queen from Game of Thrones, or Sarah Connor.  While granted she is a fine actress, I don't think she's an over the top villain in this movie at all, and does very well.  For those of you that have seen Dredd and read this, yes I griped about a villain at the end using a bomb for the major climax, and yes it is used in Dredd, but look how much time is spent on this, which is very little.  It's not like a major complex plot point, it just makes for a really cool death scene, and isn't that what we really want at the end of a movie like this?  To another point, I'm sure a lot of you enjoyed The Dark Knight, and yes Heath Ledger's Joker was amazing, but remember at the end, he too used a bomb to hold people hostage on the ferry.  Again, in a proper context of the story this is forgivable, as it was not really his main plan, turning Harvey Dent into Two-Face was.  Whereas in the Dark Knight Rises, that's all the plan was, just to detonate a huge bomb off.

Hopefully someone who reads this will begin to question Super Hero Comic Book movies from now on.  Just because they have a cool actor, and a dark rough voice, doesn't mean its going to be good.  Now I hate guys who just complain about movies, and that they just suck, cause that's not all I've been doing right?  Who am I to judge all these great filmmakers?  I'm not saying all of them are bad, but if I had the opportunity,  I know I could make a better movie than The Amazing Spider Man.  I've gone over what I would do with a Superman movie, Lois Lane trapped in a falling building while Superman battles a huge beast, better than what I saw Bryan Singer do.  For Spider Man I would do what I suggested earlier, Sinister Six, or Maximum Carnage.  If you want to know what I would do for Batman, it would have to be something like the Arkham Asylum storyline, just the worst day in Batman's life, that's what I would do.  Of course if I really could do a Batman movie, obviously I would do The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, which recently was made into an animated movie, which is good, but could have been better if they made it R rated.  For those of you not familiar with it, The Dark Knight Returns is about a retired 55 year old Bruce Wayne coming back out of retirement, dawns the cape and cowl, and kicks Gotham a completely new asshole, fighting new villains and old, and even an old friend with a big red S.  If I could do it now, Bruce Willis as Batman, and Kevin Spacey,  John Malkovich, or Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon?) as the Joker.  I would not make it unless it could be R rated as well, and as far as going into major plot details, like Heath Ledger's Joker said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

Why can't a zombie just eat Honey Boo Boo's Brains?

Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been severely slacking.  Part of the problem has been I haven't really had anything to post about.  At one point I thought about doing a post about Rosie O'Donnell loving Honey Boo Boo, and how awful that whole mess is, but I think South Park pretty much said all I wanted to say in the episode that featured Honey Boo Boo.  One thing I will say is, I read that Rosie loved the Honey Boo Boo family so much, that she wanted to buy them a house.  Really?  Cause that sort of family needs a house from Rosie?  How about oh I don't know, a hurricane Sandy victim that lost their house, or maybe oh let's just say, any person living homeless in the USofA, or any third world country for that matter? Don't you think Rosie could do better than buying Honey Boo Boo a house?

While I don't really like spending time talking about Reality Television shows, I'm finding a new disturbing trend.  Remember back in the early 90's when reality shows were just beginning to find their niche, like The Real World on MTV?  How the show was based on lets just get a bunch of people in one house and see what happens?  That was great at first, it was actual reality.  But then Hollywood Land noticed that they could make a bunch of money off of doing these cheap reality shows.  All you need is a good producer, some camera crew, and people to film. Certainly is a lot cheaper than paying for a writer, director, actors, sets, locations, etc.  And of course I could probably do a whole post on reality TV, but I'm not going to do that, I'm already like two paragraphs into this post, and I haven't even tackled the title of it yet, false advertising or what?  What I will say, is I'm beginning to see a new trend on reality TV, and it makes me sick.  Instead of just finding normal people, it seems like every reality show is just looking for someone who is mentally disabled, or deranged, or borderline psychotic.  Now if done in the right way, this can be extremely entertaining, and yet thought provoking as well.  If you don't believe me, watch the documentary Heroes, on HBO.  But for now, it just seems like producers will look for people they can just straight up exploit so that viewers can watch and laugh at them.  Is that really where we want our viewing direction to head?  Sure it's fun to make fun of people, but don't parade this shit around television and then show us a commercial about how bullying is bad.  Gee Hollywood, haven't you bullied women, gays, minorities, and others enough?

I'm not making this up either, if you don't believe me, just wait.  I'm sure you've heard of Nat Geo's show Doomsday Preppers.  Is that one or two words?  Anyway, in like a week or two, they are having an end of the world special, and one of those shows, is about how people believe that a zombie outbreak is a real thing, and preparing for!  Really?  A zombie apocalypse is a real thing? Give me a break, break me off a piece of that....Zombies are going to rise, and eat brains!  Now of course, everyone imagines what they are going to do if there was an actual zombie outbreak, hell when I worked at Meijer, I and another manager came up with a plan of what to do to lock down the store and survive.  No shit, seriously, but not once did it ever come up as a real thing, it was just something to talk about to entertain each other.  But in this special they have people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE this is going to happen.  Recently, a boyfriend shot his girlfriend in the back with a rifle, because she argued with him that a zombie outbreak would never really happen after watching an episode of The Walking Dead.  I kid you not!

I think the problem is, that the reality shows have hit a roadblock.  They've done all they pretty much can with the whole reality show spectrum.  I mean you can only do so much with reality!  No wonder people are starting to go back to shows with original ideas and story lines.  It just goes to show people, if it's a shitty product, don't watch it, and they will stop making it.  If you find something that is good, and support it, you can have an absolute smash hit.  The Walking Dead is a great show that highlights this point.  The only mistake AMC ever made with this show, is thinking it wasn't going to make it past season one, that and letting Frank Darabont go.  Really? You get the guy who did one of the best movies of all time (I don't actually think it's the best movie of all time), and you let him go after season one?  We all saw what happened with season 2 of TWD, after Darabont left, I think it left Mazarra and the other producer chick, scrambling trying to come up with an idea of what the hell to do, and ended up spending way too much time on that farm, debating philosophy and morality.  Really?  Did you really think that that's what people watched TWD for?  The good thing is, it seemed like the showrunners actually listened to the fans, and season 3 has been just what it should have been, following the comic!  Now I'm not one of those fan boy types that thinks you should follow every frame right from the comic.  When transitioning from one medium, such as comics or novels, to movies or television, it's a new product that needs to be presented in a different way while still remaining loyal to the original content.

I should have a point to this whole post right?  Well I guess ultimately, stop watching shitty reality shows.  Watch something that people in the industry put their time and passion into.  Don't waste your time watching schlock about borderline mentally retarded people (Mtv's Teen Mom 2, Ke$ha is like my idol), who have no business in front of a camera.  You want to know the reason why good episodic shows like The Walking Dead or Arrested Development never get love from networks?  Because they don't fit the formula, they don't fit into the mold of 24 plus episodes a season, so that they can get to episode 100 and begin running it in syndication.  That's really all the networks care about, can a show get to 100 plus episodes, so we can just cash in on the royalties.  So stop pandering to the system, watch original content.  Just because a show is only ten episodes, doesn't mean its bad, it just means its usually way better than a hundred episodes of a schlock show combined.

Evil Dead 4?!

So Evil Dead is being remade or number 4 is being made, whatever you want to call it.  Evil Dead is coming back! This should be great news right?  Personally, Evil Dead (2) is one of my favorite movies of all time! At least in the horror genre anyways.  Yes we can gripe between which was the better, but come on, Evil Dead 2 wasn't a direct sequel, it was just a remake of the first one with a better budget.  No you say?  Right I know the sequel had a montage in the beginning which recaps the first movie, but then the sequel just does the exact same plot as before, just done better.  Remember Evil Dead 1 started from a short film that Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi did for Michigan State.  So now that's out of the way, we move onto Army of Darkness, another great piece of cinema horror/comedy history.  I'm not going to go into detail of the plots here, as I'm hoping anyone that is reading this has seen these movies, if not, stop reading and go BUY these movies, you will not be disappointed if you're say a Resident Evil (yuck) fan, or a Dawn of the Dead (or insert any Romero zombie film here) fan.

So obviously, enough time has passed, that warrants a remake or another sequel.  Personally I do think remake is more appropriate for this than rather doing a straight up sequel, I love Bruce Campbell, but it's time to pass the torch.  By the way, before I get further into this, Bruce Campbell supposedly was offered a cameo in the new Evil Dead, but turned it down, which I give him props for doing.  Especially with what this new Evil Dead is going to be.  So a new Evil Dead movie, I should be excited right?  Well I was, until I saw the direction they are going.  Now granted, I'm not the most in depth researcher, all the information I'm going off of is from IMDB.  So why am I not happy?  Simply put, the lead character in this new remake.  Let's face it, what was it that made Evil Dead so awesome? Well let's look at the movie.  Sure at it's core, it's just another zombie flick, where you could even compare it to Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead," where it's a group of people, diverse in background, culture, race, all stuck in a house, or cottage, surrounded by evil.  Believe it or not, this will help prove my point, don't worry I'm getting to it, of why this remake angle is a bad idea, but I'll get to that later.

Okay, so why am I not liking this remake? Plain and simple, it's who they have casted for the lead.  Jane Levy.  Who you ask?  Yeah I had to look her up.  If you ask me she looks like a second rate Isla Fischer.  And if you're going for a second rate Isla Fischer, man you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  For those who don't know who Isla Fischer, she was the crazy redhead in "The Wedding Crashers."  Jane Levy's previous works include "Suburgatory," U.S. version of "Shameless," and "Nobody Walks."  Yeah, I haven't seen any of those either, but that's not my biggest gripe about casting her.  It's the fact that the lead in this film, or the protagonist, is a female.

Now before everyone gets all sexist on me, let me just say, I have no problem with a female being a protagonist in any kind of story.  "Alien," and "Aliens," are some of my favorite movies of all time.  Who was the protagonist in those, a female "Ripley."  Those movies never really would have worked as well with a male lead, it just fit to have a female in the role of Ripley.  The first "Alien," was all about survival, and it made you empathize with this Ripley character of just wanting to get the hell off that ship and away from that creature.  Same goes for the great sequel, and probably the last good film James Cameron ever made without Arnold.  The Ripley character wouldn't have worked as well, if you had some macho dude go in there with all those Marines.  Ripley was a nice foil to all of that.  Also look at "The Night of the Living Dead," female lead in that as well.  I know a lot of people will hate me for saying this, but I was more of a fan of the remake in 1990.  Patricia Tallman I thought did an excellent job of starting out as this weak girly girl type, and by the end turned into this badass killing zombie machine.  But isn't that what they are going for in the Evil Dead remake? Well of course, obviously.  But there's where they will fail.

What made the Evil Dead series so great?  What made us all Hail to the King?  Bruce Campbell.  Now like I said before I don't think Bruce should strap on the chainsaw, and load up the sawed off, but to put a female lead is downright a spit in the face to any Evil Dead fan.  Let's face it, Evil Dead was awesome because of the one liners.  "I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul!" "Swallow this!"  BOOM!  Or how about when Ash hooks up the chainsaw to his blood stump and says, "Groovy."  That was just cool.  Yeah they were all corny, but corny works in that setting!  Now imagine, a little red head, who by the way still looks like she's twelve, saying stuff like that.  It just doesn't have the impact of a guy saying that.  I'm sorry, it just doesn't work.  Now granted, its a remake, they want to take it in a new direction, I understand that.  I just don't see this "little girl," making the impact that Bruce "Don't call me Ash" Campbell had on the screen.  The whole reason, at least me personally, fell in love with the Evil Dead, was because the Ash character starts out as just an average guy.  Even kind of stupid if you will.  He was just some guy who brought his girl out to a cottage in the woods, to get some, and ended up having to dismember her body, even while her decapitated head talked shit to him. (Wow is that really the first curse word I've used in this blog?)  Not to mention in the Evil Dead, especially with number two and "The Army of Darkness," there was an edge of humor, and slapstick silliness to it all.  Will Jane Levy, be able to bring that kind of slapstick humor, while still remaining a badass?  That's a pretty tall order if you ask me.

Who knows, I could be completely wrong and this new version with a twelve year old Pippy Longstockings reject might just blow us away with crazy new one liners like, "Hail to the Queen, baby!"  See, it just doesn't have the same affect.  Oh so you're saying I should do better than? Well I'm actually terrible at casting when it comes to this kind of stuff, but I'll throw my two cents in on this.  Whom do I think should rise up and take the mantle from Bruce Campbell to be the new badass in Evil Dead? I have to go with Nathan Fillion.  Yes, the guy from Firefly.  He would do well in that role, he can play the average joe guy, stuck in a bad situation, and come out a badass, while still spitting out one liners and having some slapstick thrown in.  Now shut up, and give me some sugar baby.

Looper

So I'm going to start this one off by saying I have not watched this film.  I have only seen the trailers for it.  I should start off by saying I'm a huge Bruce Willis fan.  Seriously, I think he's great, no he's not like a true thespian Shakespeare actor in the same league as like a Kenneth Brannaugh, but for what he does, there's no one better.  He's also one of those actors that have just gotten better with age.  Now I should also say, just because Bruce Willis is in the movie, doesn't mean I'm going to like it.  I mean the fourth Die Hard, come on.  It was bad enough Timothy Olyphant played a boy band bad guy, but even Justin Long and Kevin Smith? couldn't save that movie.  But who else would have played a better Corben Dallas?  And whatever happened to Chris Tucker? I heard they are making another Friday movie and Cube said he would bring back Chris, but I just don't see that happening.  Am I the only one that thinks Chris Tucker just disappeared and turned into the guy he played in "The Dead Presidents?" I can see him now, in that recliner, ODing on heroin with the syringe still stuck in his vein.
Anyway, back to Looper.  So the main plot of this story, from what I've gathered from the trailers mind you, is that time travel is discovered, and then outlawed?, and the mob controls it like on the black market.  Okay, sure I can see that happening, realistic enough for a sci-fi fantasy setting.  But so then the mob decides to use this as a way to carry out their hits.  Okay, I get it, no body no crime, send it to the past problem solved.  Totally makes sense.  Or does it?

Here's where I have problems with this swiss cheese story.  Time travel is discovered and then outlawed, but the Mob seems to use it no problem.  Wait a minute, where's Jean Claude van Damme?  I mean where's Timecop?  If the government is able to outlaw time travel, don't you think they would have some way of enforcing that?  From the trailer it seems there is no deterrent for the mob to pull this off.  Which although I know this is fantasy, seems somewhat unrealistic.  How can you outlaw something, and then have no way of enforcing it?  It's not like when they had prohibition, even though bootlegging was going on, they had law enforcement do nothing about it.  That's where Kevin Costner came in, right?
So okay, the mob seems to control this outlawed process, with no deterrent whatsoever.  Let's look past that for a moment.  Let's take a look at what they use this for.  The mob controls time travel, and when they have a target that needs to be eliminated, they send him or her back 30 years into the past, so that a Looper can kill, and dispose of the body.  Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?  I have to imagine this is kind of like overkill.  So in the future, they don't have big furnaces, or lye, or acid, that can burn up bodies?  Or even a chain and a brick?  Or how about pigs? Or any other kind of animal you could chop up a body and feed to?  It would seem that any of those alternatives, would be just as effective, if not cheaper than having to use a time traveling device to send someone back into the past.  Think about it, time travel is invented, and outlawed, and only the mob uses it.  Well then that means no Joe Schmo is going to be able to do it, you must need time and money to be able to I'm assuming have a device of some kind to time travel.  Hence you would need money or some kind of resource to send someone back in time.  And if this becomes their whole operation of taking care of their hits, doesn't it seem like a complete waste of funds?  Yeah let's send this guy back in time to be taken care of, and pay up the ass to do it, where as you could just have some guy do it in the present, do the same thing the looper does, but not have to pay for the whole time travel.  So wait you're saying I'm starting to make more sense than this ridiculous movie idea? Just wait, it gets better!
So now that I've pointed out how ridiculous a notion this is, for the mob to send guys back in time, to be taken care of, when someone could just as easily do it in the present, which I'm assuming would be cheaper, brings me to the real point of how ridiculous this plot is.  Think about it, time travel is outlawed, and the mob uses time travel to carry out hits.  Do you really think, if the mob had access to time travel, they would use it to carry out hits?  No.  What does the mob do?  Make money.  Sure they do other things, but what is the real point of being in organized crime?  It is to make money.  So they have access to a time machine, and all they use it for is to send guys back in time to be killed?  That seems like a complete waste of resources.  Wouldn't it make sense to use the time machine to rig sporting events?  Like the mob wouldn't make a killing in Vegas being able to rig sports or affect the outcome of something?  Or use it to move in on another territory for its resources before they are even claimed?  Like say you're in 2073, and you're a Don Kingpin in the mafia, how much richer would you be if you sent some guys down to take over the 1970's and 80's cocaine market?  Seriously, I mean everyone has seen "Blow," and how about just a group of people were able to make a killing off the entire market?  How hard would it have been to send two tough guy mafioso's down there and tell George they work for them now?
Lastly, and this is a total nitpick but I think it needs to be said.  Am I the only one, that thinks Joseph Gordon Levitt, looks like an idiot in that makeup they put him in?  Seriously!  He talked in some interview about how he would have to sit in a makeup chair for hours because, "he looked nothing like Bruce Willis," well no shit Sherlock.  You don't look like Bruce Willis, but putting on some fake eyebrows and lines in your face, do not make it look any better.  In fact it just looks weird, and every time I see him in the trailer, I tend to think, "What's wrong with your face?"

First Post

Hello and welcome to my blog! I can't tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but if you ask me, I'm going to lean towards bad. Why? Because I've always thought as wonderful as the internet is, its also the biggest nightmare ever. A place where any idiot can go out and say whatever he or she can say, is straight up dangerous. No filter, no censorship, just straight flowing conscious thought pouring from every web page. Now sure there's nothing bad about someone sharing their thoughts or beliefs, the danger comes in when idiot reader takes that information and uses it as fact or becomes a belief.
Beliefs, now that's the most dangerous thing in the world. Beliefs are argued, fought over, killed for, and died over. Beliefs, in another word, dangerous. As you read think of your beliefs, and what you have, or what you would do for your beliefs. Would you die for your belief in Jesus or Allah? Would you kill for democracy or socialism? Or lets not even go life or death, would you paint your naked chest and freeze in zero degree weather for Green Bay, or the Steelers? Maybe not exactly dangerous, but certainly not safe either. Will I tell you to stop believing? No, beliefs although dangerous, have an upside as well. How many third world countries now have running water that they did not have before, all thanks to people believing in a guy who taught them right and wrong.  I could go on, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you are one of those idiots I was talking about at the beginning of this post.
Going along with beliefs, nationalism is another danger.  I've always thought nationalism should only be used for one thing, and one thing only, the Olympics.  I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud of your country, you should, but when you get into the whole, my country is better than yours, you can see where the problem lies.  You could also get into the whole, my God can beat up your God, debate in here as well, but we all know that's just going to turn us into dogs chasing our own tails.
By now you're asking is there a point to my rambling about dangerous beliefs? Yes.  This blog is not here intended to create controversy, promote independent thought, or question what you thought was solid is now crumbling.  This blog is for entertainment purposes only.  Sure I may go deep, but as you read each and every post that may or may not come into this, remember, this is for entertainment.  I am not here to cater to the masses, or go with what's popular in pop culture.  If that's what you are looking for, then you can look elsewhere.  This blog is dangerous.  It will be my free flowing conscious spewing out rambling rhetoric of how I see this cruel, twisted, and beautiful world we call Earth. I don't really know what to expect from this blog so we all shall see together what comes of this as its all just one big work in progress.  What I can say, is that if you are reading this, I thank you for your time and consideration, and hopefully something written in here will promote free thought and independent beliefs outside of what has been structured for so many of us in society.  But you must always remember, this is for entertainment purposes only.
In this blog, I don't have some outlying plan that this will cover this, or that, it will be whatever I feel I need to publish at the time.  If you were to ask me right now, I'll probably point out to be reviewing or criticizing works in the media, television, film, books, music, video games, and whatever else I feel like covering.
Now granted, I myself hate critics, and reviews of such, as I feel its hard to critique or review someone else's art, that they have poured a piece of themselves into.  But as a writer myself, yes I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Creative Writing, or how to bullshit your way through college, as I like to call it, I feel like I have an opinion that is missing in today's society.  And I guess that is why the real reason for this blog is being created.  I know for a long time, that the film and television industry is shelling out excrement for us to watch, and I've reached the point where my anger has outgrown my apathy to sit back and watch, to take some type of action.  This blog is my action.  This is my forum to announce to the world things you love or like, are terrible, and should be put six feet under.  Did I just really say that? Yup.  Because I guarantee there's something out there that you love, and I will find a way to rip it apart, and hopefully show you faults that you did not see before.  The biggest example of this would be the show "Lost," on ABC.  Of course, I'm sure I'm not the only fan of that show that watched that last season and just went, "Are you kidding me? That's how you ended it?"  Or maybe you're not a fan of "Lost," how about "The Sopranos?"  Yeah great show, but horrible ending.  I mean horrible.  You know what I always thought "The Sopranos" should have ended?  It should have ended like "The Departed," where everyone just gets killed.  Really? Yup, they all should have been killed.  It's a mob story, and how many mob stories end with a happy ending?  Instead they just go black and mute.  Really? How much more dramatic would have it been, seeing Tony Soprano and his family gunned down, blood dripping from their bodies, while some Sinatra song plays in the background?  Way more appropriate ending than just cutting to a black screen.  Anyway I feel like I'm starting to go off on tangents and I want to stay focused here. Hopefully this blog will be a way to entertain you, and make you think for yourself.  That's my real hope for this, but alas, only time will tell how corrupted and twisted my hopes and dreams become.