General Thoughts #3

Yeah, I know. I said I'd be more frequent with this, and suddenly I'm gone for three days. I was busy over the weekend, and Monday I just couldn't be bothered. Jesus took three days off, gosh darn it, why can't I? Because I can't do magic, mainly. That's how I like to think of Jesus, really. Just a chilled out hippy magician, rolling through town being misunderstood. But of course, he's cool with it, cause he's only here to hang out, tell a few stories, do a few illusions, maybe even go fishing if the mood takes him. Like a spaced out Derren Brown, but rocking the sweet beard and hair combo, and of course ripped to the tits. I used to wonder why he was always presented as being super-fit, but in hindsight, anyone who wasn't rich enough to sit in big chairs eating grapes was probably in pretty good shape in those days.

I like to include you in what my brains doing, no matter how bad or good, and currently a large chunk of it won't stop playing this song in my head...

... which is a particularly cruel move on it's part because of how bitingly cold its becoming outside now. I don't mind most weather really, but there's a level of cold that just ruins me. I have 'bad circulation' you see, which I think means that the blood isn't pumped as efficiently or quickly enough around my body. All I do know is that I've lost count of the amount of times my fingers have gone from purple to blue to white and numb in a matter of seconds. It's not as much of a bother as you'd think; I don't actually feel the cold as much at that point, and they're still at least somewhat functional.

I saw a magpie again today, by the way. Long time readers may recall my multi-year plight of magpies appearing no matter where I went. It hadn't been as frequent recently, leading me to hope that the apparent curse placed upon me had begun to recede. Today, however, as I was strolling down the main road, a single magpie hopped out in front of me, pecking at the ground as they do. Then it stopped and, I swear its true, looked at me. Only for a second or two, and with a jaunty cock of the head, but significant enough to bring it all back. I don't know what the magpie's want with me, I rarely wear anything particularly shiny, but if you'd keep an ear to the ground in case you hear of any Hitchcock-style deaths (terrible movie (The Birds)), I'd appreciate it.

I'm currently watching snooker (the UK championships) as I write this. This is not especially significant, except that I do it a lot, and I don't know why. Whenever there's snooker on TV, I'll inevitably end up sitting for hours on end watching it. I do have an interest in sport, don't get me wrong, but I'm more of a football and rugby guy, whereas I'd snooker more into the relaxed category with golf and such. And I hate golf; its boring and, from what I've seen, more frustrating than rewarding. I've also never played snooker. I've played pool, as nearly everyone has, but that's a little more anarchic than snooker, which is my usual style. So why I like snooker is a bit mystifying. Maybe its the waistcoats and bow ties; I'm a sucker for snappy dressers, especially waistcoats. Maybe it's the commentary, which is so soothing as to be almost hypnotic. Or maybe it's just the bright colours; I can be a bit of a simpleton at times.

Speaking of TV, I noticed on Twitter that on a recent episode of X Factor, evil overlord Simon Cowell criticised people who came on the show "just to get famous", which struck as a rather odd thing to say. I'll preface this by saying I don't watch X Factor; I tried one series a few years ago at the insistence of my sister and, while occasionally entertaining, the whole experience left more of a negative vibe than a positive one. Anyway, in terms of the statement, it seems a little naive. I'd accuse Cowell of being many things, but naive is not one of them. Surely the whole reason one goes on X Factor is to have their singing talent noticed, and then catapulted into notoriety. I'm not criticising the format, my issues with X Factor come from other avenues, but what other reason would you go on X Factor, apart from to achieve fame for your talent? You can't expect to go on, do well, and then return to a quiet life, surely? People get noticed in clubs and on small stages all the time, going on national TV is an extra step that isn't taken without knowing exactly where it leads.

While we're on recent 'showbiz' events, I realise that after devoting a whole post to the Jurassic World trailer, I didn't even mention the premiere of the arguably much more discussion worthy Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer which hails the return of the series in film terms. To be blunt, this is because Star Wars has never really got me going so I don't know what I'm doing(to paraphrase The Kinks). I have watched all the films, and enjoyed them; even the much maligned sequels to an extent, but the sometimes obsessive following seems bizarre to me. So no big discussion coming. In short, I like it. It seems much more original Star Wars than the squeaky clean look of the prequels, and it'll be nice to see grumbly old Harrison Ford again. I didn't understand the backlash to a black Stormtrooper though.

The horror! (John Boyega in Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

After the nerdgasm in the immediate fallout of the trailers release, there emerged a group of 'fans' who seemed quite chagrined that one of the apparent main characters should be black, because apparently with Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian) and Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), that particular quotient was already full to capacity. There were subsequent arguments that this was not necessarily a race issue, but more to do with the logic of the wider Star Wars universe. Apparently, no Stormtrooper could feasibly be black because of the original race of the clones that the Stormtroopers came from. I did later read something which explained that multiple races were used in the creation of the original clones or Stormtroopers (can you tell that I don't get it yet?), but regardless, they're Stormtroopers. In the original films, THEY ALL WORE HELMETS. Know what that means, kids? Means you couldn't possibly tell what race they were, not that it should have mattered at all in the first place!

I've run out of steam on this one. Sorry it jumps about so much, but that's very much my style to be honest. And of course, as always, a very good day to you, Sirs and Madams, until we meet again.

General Thoughts #2

I'm not going to lie. This post will seem incredibly similar in structure to yesterday's (the term 'structure', of course, used loosely) in that it has no particular direction. Although I realise I could have just called yesterday's 'Lack of sleep & Guardians of the Galaxy', so in the end it did have something of a direction. It all works out in the end, eh? None of that today though, oh no. Today, we're going free form. If any fellow English Literature students are reading, think of this as the 'stream of consciousness' you learn about in modernism. Yeah that's right, I'm like James Joyce (I'm not).

I went to Asda today. Yeah, I knew it was Black Friday, but sometimes a man just needs kitchen towels and detergent gosh darn it. You think you know what you're going to get in a Black Friday Asda.

Exhibit A

To be honest it wasn't that bad, although in hindsight, I was there when most folks are probably at work. However, bulk buying headphones and chargers because they're on offer is just dumb. There's no other way to describe it. Sure, Black Friday is nice when you're picking up Christmas presents or looking for a certain item that otherwise would be like a months rent to you, but it causes more problems than it solves. For one thing, unless you are just looking for one or two things, you're going to spend more than you save, guaranteed. Sure, you got a TV, tablet, headphones and trainers for a percentage of the prices, but you still spent upwards of £500 on stuff which if you really thought about it (i.e. if it wasn't covered in SALE stickers and tags) would be a waste of money.

People have died during every recent Black Friday sale, as far as I know. Think about that concept. People have been killed while SHOPPING. Of all the places with inherent danger, where you could understand on a base level the possibility of someone dying, the shopping scenario shouldn't even be a consideration. Looking on a wider scale, I'm constantly battling the slightly worrying feeling that we have begun to abandon the element of humanity that lets us consider us other humans human. Yes, we see the same species, just as one monkey or ape sees another and comprehends their relation, but we seem to be losing or ignoring one of the characteristics that separates us from those more primitive animals; the ability to look at another human, acknowledge their humanity and understand and consider that they may have needs that in some situations, override our own.

I could say more, but that's probably enough to be getting on with. What I will say is that if you work in retail today, tomorrow or any day like these, find comfort in the knowledge that you are standing on the right side of a one-day splitting of humanity. On the one side, those who have lost sight of what matter, whose crippling addiction to the idea of 'having more stuff' has won over spending a nice weekend in peace. And on the other, you; you beautiful people, who deal with sea's of metaphorical human shit everyday without taking the entirely reasonable course of action of cutting through the swathes with a machete. You're great, you are.

Of course, if you do start to get down, remember this, Happy Gandalf believes in you:

Something I forgot to mention in my assessment of 'Guardians of the Galaxy' yesterday, was that it was possibly the first time I have loved every single song that appeared in a movie. Even Tarantino didn't get full marks in that department. I don't know what it is about songs of that era that I prefer, but I'll say this; if I had been born 20 years earlier, I'd be 20 years older now.

I have a question; I'll label it rhetorical if only to save embarrassment when no one answers it: should I be worried that I am completely unable to settle on any one particular career path. Everyone of my age and ilk that I speak to seems to have at least an inkling of a concept of a smidgen of an idea about where they'd like to be in five years. At this point, in five years my only hope is I'm not quite dead yet. Aspirations!

I'm worried I might be a hipster. I was first alerted to this in my final year of sixth form, when a friend and myself were accused of this identity. Honestly, I've always been bad at knowing what the new set of people is and how to identify them, as well as knowing what I'm supposed to be. Apparently hipsters wear old clothes (vintage), grow beards and crazy hair, ride bikes and hate anything mainstream. I tend to like old clothes (vintage), if I could grow a beard I would and my hair is crazy simply by design, unfortunately. I don't ride bikes too often anymore, but I don't tend to be into anything mainstream. So maybe I am a hipster. An accidental hipster. That's a book or a film or an album somewhere, surely.

I've never understood the opposition to 'the mainstream'. I'm certainly never going to fit in to the mainstream in the sense of what is considered by the majority to be 'good' or 'cool', but this sudden idea that something is rubbish the moment everyone likes it is just moronic. I could go deeper, and maybe one day I will, but for now I'll simply say this; if something has garnered enough attention and interest that it has grown widely popular, it is simply childish to suggest that it does not have some merit in its relative field. For example, I don't like Coldplay; I find their music formulaic and ultimately boring. But to suggest that they aren't worthy of their place because I personally don't like them doesn't make sense. Conversely, I also dislike Justin Bieber, Yes he has legions of fans, but if you were to group all the people who knew of him, and then separate them into simple sectors of 'like' and 'dislike', I can almost guarantee that the dislike group would be larger. I think that proves my point, I can't quite remember.

Finally, and as always, a very good day to you, Sir's and Madam's, until we meet again.

There is no point...

...to this post. Sorry, if you were expecting existentialism. I could do a post like that, but consider how rambling and confusing this blog is when the subject is comparatively simple, I'd rather not lead you down that rabbit hole. So as I said, there is no point to this post. No specific subject, no direction; we are wandering through the woods, ignoring those vague coloured symbols on wooden posts that suggest a special woodland walk for us to go on. Why post at all in that case? 'Cause I made a promise, dammit, and a Lannister always keeps his... debts. Ignore that. Onward!

Honestly, I can't think of anything worthy of a full post on its own. I've explained this problem before, and referenced it often. And it's probably been compounded recently. See, at the best of times my thought are a little...scattered (they don't call me 'Kinda Hazy' for nothing, AMIRITE! sorry), but something I also occasionally experience is an inability to sleep. I wouldn't quite call it insomnia, if only because I know people who definitely suffer from insomnia and my experience pales in comparison. Regardless, the fact is recently I'm not too far off nocturnal. Case and point, just yesterday/today/that vague early morning no-mans-land, I was still awake at half past 5 watching movies. Why watch movies instead of actually trying to sleep? Imagine those moments before you go sleep when you're just thinking things over, but that thinking goes on for 4 hours. It was either watch movies or get lost inside my own head and go properly insane. There's a picture I saw on Twitter of a woman sitting facing her pillow, and the back of her head is a plug, and the pillow is the socket which perfectly illustrates how that works.

Anyway, back to the point, I try to get up at a good time, so I end up running on maybe 3-4 hours sleep. Which is fine, honestly; not ideal I know, but I also know there are folks high up in the world who sleep that and less every day of their lives. But it does leave me a little off-kilter for the first third of the day. So today, I started slow and never really got up to speed. But here we are and here we are and here we go, as Status Quo said. Here's a link to that, in case somehow you haven't heard it and also because this is going to be insanely wordy otherwise.

Enjoy that, why don't you.

One of the movies I did finally watch last night/morning was Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), the most recent summer blockbuster in Marvel's quest to be the only thing anyone ever see's in the cinema. Ironically, I hadn't seen in the cinema when it came out. I know. I'm sorry. Calm down. That's a little strong, don't you think? Okay, fair enough.

In all honesty, I rarely see the big movies when they come out. I'm not sure why, and it's one of my many flaws and I'm probably not going to confront it any time soon. But I finally saw GotG (for the cool kids) and I thought it was fantastic. I'll preface this by saying I was a little drunk at the time, a factor which has been scientifically proven to increase enjoyment, no matter what you're doing. But still, this movie was great. I don't have any comic book knowledge generally; of course every nerdy kid is somewhat aware of characters like Batman, Superman, Iron Man etc, but Guardians of the Galaxy didn't even pop up on my radar until the internet exploded with Chris Pratt going super-hunk. Of course, having not seen it when it first came out, I was then smothered with information about the film, so I didn't come in completely clueless. Plus, I've never really been bothered about spoilers. I'm aware it still changes how I watch something, but for me, the construction that leads to the 'spoiler' is as enjoyable as the 'spoiler' itself. 

So I went in knowing where I was, but not where I was going. For those who haven't seen it, I'm going to mention some possible spoilery stuff, because frankly I don't care, so *SPOILER* it's been out for months now *SPOILER*. 

The movie starts with a very Up (2009) style 'break-your-heart-then-build-it-back-up' opening. Unfortunately, it's a little too short to properly grab your heart then smash it against a wall, but seeing a mother die of cancer as her son struggles with how to deal with it is tough no matter what. Then suddenly the kid runs outside and is beamed up in a spaceship, and we leap into the films present day, which is the future. This is somewhat explained right at the end, and I'm assuming the sequel(s) will expand on it, but in the moment it's so sudden and out of context as to be slightly more jarring than intriguing. The rest of the movie is a tremendous thrill ride of all the things you want from this kind of movie. I'm going to say "think Avengers (2012) but in space". Wait! Don't hunt me down just yet! Let me clarify. Avengers came out while we were still in the era of going deeper into the person behind the comic book character, most prevalent in the Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012) but also in Iron Man (2008-2013), which I think they tried to carry on in Avengers. They also understood that you can't go that deep when you've got six or so main characters, so the focus is on them bouncing off each other and comedy, which creates a weird hybrid of not quite one, not quite the other, not quite either. Don't get me wrong, Avengers was awesome, but there it is.

What 'Guardians' does is that, but better. It's definitely an action comedy, not an action thriller with comedy segments, and for a comic book movie, that seems to work much better. Pratt knows comedy (if you haven't seen Parks and Recreation, he is glorious) but can also be the serious (super) hero who gets you behind him. Saldana knows her space movies (Star Trek) and it's nice that while she and Pratt show some affection, she doesn't automatically slot into the 'love interest' role. Dave Bautista, who I know from my days as a WWE wrestling fan (yeah, I was that cool), is a revelation, at many points becoming your favourite character. If I hadn't known that Bradley Cooper *SPOILERY SPOILERS* was the voice of Rocket Raccoon, I might needed a trip to IMDb. Even just through his voice, he still gives you all the feels, and if Pixar/Disney/Dreamworks aren't already signing him up for their next project, they're naught but prize fools. And of course, who doesn't wholeheartedly love Groot (Vin Diesel)?

"I am Groot" Damn right you are.

 I'm not sure whether this is my favourite comic book movie yet; I still have soft spots for Downey's Iron Man and Batman, but it's all the way up there.

By the way, I've heard people argue that Iron Man and especially Batman aren't really super heroes because they don't actually have any powers. Bugger off, you people, that's stupid. Look at it this way. For many, super heroes represent how anyone can be a hero if they work hard and believe in themselves, and where is this idea more obvious than in two guys who could just sit back on their piles of money, but choose to use the talents they have (super-genius for Iron Man/Tony Stark, super-fitness and bravery for Batman/Bruce Wayne) to help people. That's more inspirational that being accidentally bitten by a spider and then going "Well, shit, I may as well use this for good." Sorry, Spiderman fans, that was a little flippant, but whatever.

So, there's that. Looking back at this post, I'm aware just how scattershot it is, but it's a good workout for my brain, so damn your eyes, gosh darn it! If you have an opinion of Guradians of the Galaxy, or anything at all, leave it in the comments, why dontcha? I'm off now to probably not sleep again. As always, a very good day to you, Sirs and Madams, until we meet again.

Jurassic World: Jurassic Wuh?

Holy shirt! Sorry, but I told you I would, and I did. Two days in a row, and still going strong. Slightly more structure to today's post ('slightly' being the operative word) and a proper discussion of film, which is something I'm pretty sure I promised in my first post and never fully delivered on. All happening now though, isn't it!? That's probably a bit premature, but can't we all just share in the excitement? No? Okay.

Yesterday (25/11/14 for posterity's sake) the trailer for 'Jurassic World', the fourth in the 'Jurassic' series, which began in 1993 (my birth year, jus' sayin', a lot of pretty good things came out that year (that sounds awful in that context, sorry)) was released online. Apparently it was 'two days early', from which we can assume that cinema-goers on the 27th would have seen the big screen version of the trailer. While 'two days early' makes it sound like an accidental leak, I'm inclined to believe that in the cynical world of Hollywood producers, nothing is accidental. In many ways it was a clever decision. On the internet, nothing will get shared and talked about more than something which isn't supposed to be there (allegedly). Indeed, as far as I can see, since the moment the video appeared the term 'Jurassic World' has been quite highly trending, and much discussion has been provoked. 

However, there is something to be said for trailers premiering in the pre-movie ad marathon we're subjected to at the cinema. Yes, the surprise of the video suddenly appearing was nice, but imagine if that surprise had been presented in surround sound widescreen intensity, especially for a big budget epic like this. The moment when the Mosasaurus (I googled) explodes out of the water to gobble up a f'n shark, while still eye-catching, would almost certainly be mind-blowing in a cinema setting.

Universal Pictures / YouTube Screen Shot

On top of that bowel-trembling image, there's the surprisingly obvious idea of just releasing the trailer online a day or two after it appears in theatres. In that case, you get the best of both worlds; the appetising high-def glorious experience of those who see it 'live', for whom images like the one above will surely stick in the mind for a while, and then added to that, the social media effect we've seen already. Admittedly, you might see a drop-off in the amount of tweets and sharing, but I suspect that that would be offset by the tweets of folks losing their shit having seen it in the cinema. Anyway, onto the actual film itself.

The official plot summary (via The Daily Telegraph) reads:

“22 years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. This new park is owned by the Patel Corporation. Owen, a member of Jurassic World’s on-site staff, conducts behavioural research on the Velociraptors. After many years, Jurassic World’s attendance rates begin to decline and a new attraction, created to re-spark visitor interest, gravely backfires.”

One of the most telling tweets I saw in the immediate fallout of the 'leak' was along the lines of "everything looked great until 1:21." For those unsure what occurs at 1:21 that is so heinous as to ruin the whole experience, it is the point in the trailer where we are introduced to the concept of the 'genetically modified hybrid'. Basically, a super dinosaur, and the new attraction that 'gravely backfires' mentioned above. On the one hand, I have no real issue with this. Some people seem to get too hung up on every single movie being 'believable' when sometimes its better just to look at it as a big, stupid action movie and have fun with it. On the other hand, when you've got a whole park, on land and in sea, of dinosaurs, it seems a bit lazy to have your main antagonist be a scientifically-engineered super dino. I understand that getting people to buy into a plot which bears a fair few similarities to the original films concept may seem difficult, but the park itself looks to be so futuristic and packed with new dino's that I get the sense I'm going to feel like I'm missing more than I'm seeing.

So why am I still so excited? Well, it's personal confession time, folks, so gather round. I don't consider myself to have many fears at all. Not out of a sense of arrogance or over-machoness, but just because I seem to be nonplussed by quite a lot of sights. We all scream a little at jump scares, but beyond that there's not much. However, for some reason, I have an issue with dinosaurs. I'm aware it makes no sense; they're extinct, and highly unlikely to come back (!?), and yet there it is. Shots like the one above, and the T-Rex in the first film, give me the heebee jeebees. I don't know where it comes from; someday I'll probably look into it, but for now I'm just going to enjoy the thrill and hide the fear. Again, I may have revealed to much of myself (not like that, officer!), so we'll get back to the movie.

In terms of casting, man of the moment Chris Pratt as our everyman hero 'Owen' seems a perfect fit in the same way he was perfect for Guardians of the Galaxy. Bryce Dallas Howard as the parks misguided scientist/ park runner who is responsible for the 'super-dino' is also a top choice, although one hopes that she maintains a certain air of action and authority, and doesn't just descend into screaming damsel-in-distress once the film really heats up. I like the homage/reference back to the first film with brand new 'kids-in-peril' Gray (Ty Simpkins, of Inception (2010)) and Zach (Nick Robinson, of The Kings of Summer (2013)) who will attempt to survive, and to stop the audience only caring about the ancient reptiles.

By the way, even with the building tension, and teeth-gnashing dinosaurs, the creepiest part of the trailer is right at the beginning, when Judy Greer, playing what I assume is the kids mum (although IMDb lists her simply as 'park visitor'), tells them that "if anything chases you, run." As a cryptic warning itself, it's unsettling enough, but add the fact that she whispers it, and I'm close to giving back my tickets and sticking with Disney World.

There's plenty of ridiculousness around, of course. The pseudo-science and historical dino-inaccuracies have already received a bit of a backlash, but that's nothing new in this franchise. What is new (and ridiculous) is Pratt's leather vest and the hilarious moment when he motorbikes along with a group of galloping Raptors.

The only question is: who will reach 88 miles an hour first?
Universal Pictures / YouTube Screen Shot

Most ridiculous though, is the lack of doctor cameos. Namely, Doctors Grant (Sam Neill), Sattler (Laura Dern), or Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). I get that you want to move on with the franchise, but could you not just have Alan Grant appear with a world-weary, confused expression to angrily proclaim the park a bad idea? And personally, I don't ever want to watch a film that doesn't include this:

 Those are my thoughts on the upcoming 'Jurassic World' film (scheduled for a 12 June 2015 release) but what are yours? Feel free to leave a comment. Personally I'm approaching this film cautiously, as you would a sleeping T-Rex, but who knows? It could surprise us all. As an eccentric Doctor once said, "Life...................... finds a way."

A very good day to you, Sirs and Madams, until we meet again. 

Christy Biscuits!

Mothers, something mumble something daughters! Having received literally zero letters, emails, pages, telegrams, press conferences, public announcements and Ancient Greece-style messengers, by no ones demand the Kinda Hazy Blog returns from the wilderness! Not so much fireworks, more a single party popper and crumpled party hat. 

Yeah, I'm doing this again. If there was anyone who religiously read each post, I must start by apologising for what has now been an eight month (!) absence. And in all honesty, only at maybe one or two points during that three quarters of a year have I even thought about writing something on here. Not that I haven't wanted to, but I just haven't thought of anything interesting enough to merit a full blog post. I think Twitter may have stunted me. Why save up all the little snippets on nonsense that appear in my head when I can fire them off in 140 character bullets that no one cares about? Anyway, in an ongoing campaign to get my shit together, I've decided to spend my free time doing something at least somewhat productive. Goodness knows how fruitful this endeavour will turn out (it's going quite so far, I think. No? Just me?), but I'm hoping to stick at it for as long as possible.

I don't actually have a direction with this post beyond it being something of a comeback, but I should probably explain the title. No, I haven't released a brand of Messiah based nibbles. No, I'm not seeing the eminent heiress of the wealthy and powerful Biscuit dynasty. No, I haven't (quite) lost my mind (yet). In actual fact, I remember reading somewhere that the best blogs have titles which immediately grab potential readers attentionseses, and what's more attention-grabbing that someone exclaiming "Christy Biscuits!" Not much, I'll say that.

So, to summarise, expect the same, but more of. The same. More of the same. Unless in the eight month gap 'the same' has become nothing. In which case expect something completely different from the same. But not different in terms of subject matter. Although I suppose their is no real particular subject in this blog. Expect things, I guess. Not just anything, though. Written things, about stuff. Like this. So more of the same. Wait. I've gone too deep. Where's DiCaprio? Unless we're too deep and I'm just going to keep washing up on a Japanese beach,

On a side note, I like to think he actually got back his kids at the end, if only because he gets battered in that film. You watch your wife lose her mind then kill herself, you're not allowed to ever see your kids and Michael Caine is your dad/step-dad, which is frankly impossible to live up to, even for Leo. Although personally, and as awful as it sounds, I might have stayed with Marion Cotillard in the dream world (I know that wouldn't technically possible, I'm just saying). This is mainly because they're not my kids, but also because she's a favourite of mine. A proper old-school Hollywood actress; classy, cool, capable and just enough danger to keep you on your toes.

Anyway, I've revealed too much. Main points: sorry for gap, Christy Biscuits, expect more, Marion Cotillard. And a very good day to you, Sirs and Madams, until we meet again. 

Batman vs Superman vs My Wary Expectations

Slated for a summer 2016 (originally 2015) release, Batman vs Superman, or Superman vs Batman, or Man of Steel 2: Oh Cool, Batman's Here Too (title unconfirmed) is shaping up to be the biggest superhero movie since the Avenger's assembled two years ago (Age of Ultron not withstanding). With the majority of the main cast (the ones still alive), and director and now co-writer Zack Snyder returning, as well as superhero movie powerhouse Christopher Nolan executive-producing, excitement and expectations are high.

I was initially surprised that Man of Steel (2013) was receiving a sequel. The summer blockbuster was (comparatively) one of the least well received superhero/comic book movies since the boom of the genre in the mid 00's. Even commercially, its almost $670 million dollar box office haul pales in comparison to both its competition (Marvel) and the original 1978 Superman (adjusted for inflation, that version grossed almost $1.5 billion). An argument does exist which points towards the first instalment in any franchise being the least successful; the first Iron Man made less than half ($585 million) the gross of the third ($1.2 billion), Thor: The Dark World (2013) is currently $200 million better off than Thor (2011) , and  Batman Begins (2005, $374 million) is dwarfed by both of its billion dollar sequels. This argument begins to fall down, however, once you look into both the budgets, and critical reception's of those movies when compared to Man of Steel.

This may explain why the sequel will bring in Bruce Wayne/ Batman, a proven box office draw, no matter the quality of the movie he's in. The first big update following the announcement of the sequel was the casting of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader. This casting brought a ton of press to the sequel, as many (myself included) questioned the casting of someone unproven as a character actor to a part so full of character. After a few weeks of buzz, talk once again died down as many realised that no concrete assessment of Affleck's competency for the role could be made until he'd actually done it. Recently, talk started back up as two further casting choices were revealed; namely Jeremy Irons as Bruce Wayne's long suffering butler Alfred, and the surprise choice of Jesse Eisenberg as Superman's human nemesis Lex Luthor. These choices were much better received, probably because Irons is a British actor of similar pedigree to Christopher Nolan's Alfred, Michael Caine, and Eisenberg, though young compared to previous movie Luthors Spacey and Hackman, has built quite a reputation in leading performances, notably The Social Network (2010) and Now You See Me (2013).

It was this recent announcement that led me to thinking about Batman vs Superman (or whatever the final title is) and come to the conclusion that I don't believe, from a critical standpoint at least, will be the Marvel monopoly-busting success that the folks at DC are hoping. I'm not saying it won't make money; as previously noted, the Batman character is a proven draw, but as to whether the movie holds up as a piece of character driven cinema, I'm just not convinced.

If I could sum up my reasoning in one word, it would be 'character'. Namely, the two characters who will lead this film. Firstly, Superman. Personally, though I have very limited knowledge of the comic book back story, I've never put as much stock into the Superman/ Clark Kent character as other comic book superheroes. While his origin story is classically appealing; orphaned and burdened with questions about his past, great power and the resulting great responsibility, there is something about him that has never made him as heroic, inspiring or tragic as I assume he is supposed to be. Where Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark (no matter how wealthy they are) had to use their intellect, work hard, train and educate themselves; where Thor had to prove that he was worthy, Superman is born with his super powers. And what powers they are. In short, Superman is too powerful to ever seem like he's in peril. Man of Steel tried to deal with this by having his body adapt to earth, and then be weak back on Krypton, but this brief moment of peril quickly passes as the ultra-powerful Supes' and Zod decide to battle it out on earth, much to the detriment of every human living in Metropolis and Smallville. With the sequel bringing in Mr Luthor, one would assume Superman's only weakness, Kryptonite, will make an appearance, but with the alien material very difficult to obtain for humans, one has to wonder how much Clarky-boy need worry.

One review of Man of Steel suggested that the film broke no new ground on the Superman character, an I'm inclined to agree. On top of that, it strips the film of one of its best gimmicks, namely Clark Kent's real identity being kept secret from Lois Lane. With nothing new being brought to the character, and what is present not being that compelling, I have to question whether there's much left to say.

It's entirely possible that the addition of Batman will negate some of these issues, but on that matter I have some reservations also. I've already stated that the Batman character is a ripe and fruitful one, as the Nolan trilogy proved, and so I'm wondering whether adding him to a Superman-centred movie will have a negative effect on either, or both characters. In M.O.S. Superman gets the Nolan back-story-driven treatment, and the movie ended up being almost two and a half hours long. Unless this Batman continues the story from The Dark Knight Trilogy, the character will require at least a little development too; development he's not likely to get unless Batman vs Superman is going to be a four-hour epic. Superhero/comic book movies have been getting longer and longer, and one could argue that the extra minutes haven't improved the films in any meaningful way. In fact, I'd suggest that Thor: The Dark World's tighter run-time (1 hour, 52 minutes approx.) benefited the sequel.

It is, of course, possible for BvsS to avoid a longer runtime by not delving so deeply into its comic book characters, but this approach is not without its own risk. One of the main reasons Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy succeeded where previous incarnations of the character were not so successful was because it treated Bruce Wayne as the main character, and Batman as a gimmick. Previous 'Batman's' used the Bruce Wayne side of the character as a tool to assist the Batman side, who took centre stage. This meant audiences were left with essentially a cartoon character gallivanting around Gotham, without much insight into the human mental processes that went into that character motivations and decisions. In the DKT, we get to fully know and understand Bruce Wayne first, after which seeing Batman running around in a costume (especially one sans nipples) makes a little more sense. If BvsS decides not to take a closer look at Bruce Wayne, it runs the risk of turning him into a parody of the character, which will strip at least some of the gravitas of the movie away.

For these reasons, I'm tempering my expectations for the M.O.S. sequel. I'll certainly try to go and see it; just the spectacle of seeing Batman and Superman, two juggernauts of the comic book world, on screen at the same time, interacting and hopefully having a bit of a battle, will provide some enjoyment, even if the film itself falls short. But I won't go into it expecting the ultimate comic book action movie.

So there you have it. I've shared my thoughts, what do you think? Who knows, I could be completely off the mark, Affleck could hit a home run, and the movie could surpass Avengers Assemble. Leave your comments, thoughts and feelings, and as always, a very good day to you, Sir's and Madam's, until we meet again.

May this serve as an apology. I'm sure there aren't that many people who read these tomes of gibberish unless they've stumbled upon them or have a passing curiosity, but to those few who do, I firstly thank you with all the grace I can muster, and secondly apologise effusively for the unforgivable lack of any kind of content on this page. It's not for lack of ideas, believe me.

At least 40% of it is being busy with other commitments, projects, people and such; although in reality that is no excuse, since anyone who calls themselves a writer should be able to knock out a few paragraphs without it biting a major chunk out of their day. I do like to think of myself as a writer, if only because its one of the very few useful 'talents' I possess that doesn't necessarily require a job title or pay check to justify. I've been told I'm funny enough to be a comedian, but if I tell the funniest joke ever in the middle of the woods, and no one is around to laugh or offer me my own sitcom week-nights on BBC 2, am I really a funny person?

I don't know why I'd be telling a joke when I'm in the middle of the woods, even if it is the funniest one ever. Even if I could speak the language of the woodland creatures, surely my first move would be to enquire about the availability of temporary accommodation, not engage in revelry. That would have to wait until we were gathered around the camp fire in the town centre, discussing the finer points of woodland politics while Mr. Fox played a lilting tune on his guitar. 

By the way, and not to defer even further from the subject, but Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is a brilliant movie. I fully recommend watching it. You should also read the Roald Dahl novel. Do that first in fact. Wes Anderson bring his own beautiful brand of quirky joy to the story, its voiced brilliantly by some A-list talent (including Anderson regular Billy f'n Murray) and who doesn't love an old-fashioned stop motion movie? Both Anderson and Dahl are masters of their respective crafts.

Anyway, the real reason I don't write and post as regularly as I should is a combination of several terrible characteristics that have developed over many years off ill discipline, which in itself is a bad characteristic to have. I'm not the kind of person who can say to himself, "You're going to sit down at your laptop and write for one hour, or however long it takes (or whatever) to do some meaningful work, and nothing is going to distract you, or take precedence over this piece of writing." 

I try to, but my brain answers back, "Why can't I? The internet is right there. Right there. LOOK! Don't try to ignore it, there's plenty other things you could while you're doing this oh so important piece of writing. No, I don't think it'll distract you. Not that much. Just load up Youtube, snap it right, snap the word document left and write away. You clearly think you're the second coming of Shakespeare, it shouldn't be that hard to shit out some paragraphs. I'm sorry, that was mean. You're a good guy. I like when we imagine stuff, like your lecture turning into a huge paint ball battle." By the time I've had that conversation, time's gone and the world's turned.

If that wasn't enough, I also hate planning, and rely way too much on inspiration and sudden jolts of creativity to come up with ideas. I'd love to be the kind of person who can draw up detailed plans and frameworks for pieces of writing, but the most I can call up is a hastily scrawled note on whatever scrap of paper is nearby, a note which barely makes sense and is more often than not illegible.

My third, but most likely not final, reason for not being any good at being a blogger is quite simple procrastination. This is a word that pervades many areas of my life. I seem incapable of writing, or even starting essay more than 36 hours before the essay deadline, and even then I won't be able to finish until there is, at most, half an hour to go. I guess this links back to the distraction thing, but I seem to be in possession of a sickening lack of focus. I have things I want to do, sometimes more than anything, but my mind is constantly going "Look at that! Never mind! Hey, you think people would keep bumblebees as pets if they were bigger? They're fluffy, and they don't really want to hurt you. You could ride it around town. By the way, you need to go to town later, we're out of bread. Who says 'go to town' any more? I guess people just say 'going shopping' nowadays. Hey, what were you meant to be doing?"

In short, I'm a kinda hazy guy! Sorry, bad joke. Won't be telling that one in the woods. Regardless, I hope this serves as some kind of apology for the big load of nothing I've produced since December. I've said it before and I'll most likely say it again, but I'll try to be more regular in the future. For what that declaration is worth. And seriously, watch and read Fantastic Mr. Fox. And everything Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson make. Roald Dahl has sadly passed away but Anderson's next movie , The Grand Budapest Hotel, comes out in March I think.

As always, a very good day to you, Sir's and Madam's, until we meet again.