Dunkirk- History or Art?

Dear Readers,

Something a bit out of the ordinary today.  I had the opportunity to go see “Dunkirk” with my family this weekend, so I decided to do a quick review.  I will try to keep it spoiler free for the most part, so if you haven’t seen the film and are considering doing so, hopefully you will find this post helpful.

Right off the bat, I want to address a reaction that I have seen from several people to this film.  If you go in expecting a history movie, be prepared to be disappointed.  While this is a film about a historical event, it is an experience film not a historical film.  Let me elaborate.  There are a number of different traits of “historical” films.  Firstly, these films tend to narrativize events by focusing on specific individuals over a specified length of time.  The narrative is further built using opening text that gives the viewer a time and place (i.e. “1776, New York City” or something similar), and closing text to detail the specific events of the story or what happened to specific characters after the end of the film.  These text segments are also used to “info dump” historical facts (i.e. “1000 soldiers died in this battle, while another 4000 were wounded” or “This character was married to his loving wife for 50 years, until his death in 2004”), info dumps which are often intercut with photos of the individuals portrayed in the film or video clips of interviews.  Each of these aspects is designed to give the film a feeling of historicity, facts and relics of the past lending credence to the story being told.  “Dunkirk” is not a historical film.  It makes no claims to the historicity of the events portrayed, it does not name drop well known historical figures, the only textual addendums are the names of the locations and brief statements on the chronology of each story.  Instead, “Dunkirk” is a film about experiencing war, seeing the events as they happen, not as a narrative or part of a larger story.

Just like the characters of the film, we are flung into the battle without pretext; we don’t know any of the soldiers before the opening of the film, nor are we treated to information about what happens to them after the events of the film conclude.  We are forced to get to know these characters in the worst of circumstances, on the basis only of their actions during the film.  We do not even have much dialog; there are no quiet moments where characters discuss the families they left at home or the quiet job they wish to go back to.  Their only focus is survival, on getting through the hell around them and getting to safety.  Instead, we come to know the characters by the powerful looks they exchange, the fear in their faces as dive bombers circle overhead, the determination as they struggle through impossible circumstances, the quiet resolve as characters make choices to sacrifice themselves.  Most of these characters are just a nameless part of the collective, yet never is the audience in any doubt as to their humanity and the tragedy of their situation.  The story becomes, not about the important history of the battle; the names of the important players, the number of boats, the facts and figures, but is instead about living through these days and nights with the unknown soldiers, experiencing their fear, sympathizing with their struggle.

To this end, the film takes steps to integrate the audience with the characters.  As mentioned earlier, the audience and characters know very little about each other, resulting in a sense of displacement and uncertainty.  This is compounded by the sparse dialog and incredible use of ambient noise.  Most war films try to immerse the audience in the horror of battle through the use of grotesque imagery; body parts flying, large explosions, etc.  “Dunkirk” instead uses sound to discombobulate the audience and deepen the experience.  The sound of gunshots is cripplingly loud and dive bombers is cripplingly loud and disorienting; the first volley is enough to make some audience members cringe and cover their ears.  While visual graphic violence is kept to a minimum, the ears of the audience are instead assaulted with the sounds of war; screams, explosions, shots, waves crashing, heavy breathing, motors, sound after sand in an overwhelming barrage.  It is not just in the battle that the use of sound is so effective.  The lack of dialog allows for the wide use of ambient noise to create a sense of verisimilitude; tea cups clinking, wind blowing past, footsteps on a dock that reaches deeper than any conversation could.  Noise makes the world of “Dunkirk” feel real without relying on the crutch of facts and figures to prove that “reality.”

I want to keep this short, so I will skip ahead to my recommendation.  “Dunkirk” is an amazing film, a work of art that is about experiencing the horror of this specific historical event.  It does not rely on the trapping of a historical film to verify its historicity, but instead focuses on the experience of the characters to provide verisimilitude.  In some ways, the artistry of the film is also its biggest flaw.  A number of viewers are put off by the immersive structure of the film; they expect the motifs of a classic historical film, and are alienated by the lack of story structure and the absence of additional historical information to frame the events of the narrative.  Thus, if you are a viewer who wants a historical film, “Dunkirk” may not be the best film for you.  However, the movie is brilliantly structured, acted, and directed, and is well worth viewing if you can approach it as an experiential work of art not as a depository of historical information.  When treated in this manner, “Dunkirk” becomes a deeply moving film about human nature, and the choice to transcend even the most horrible of circumstances in order to accomplish something incredible.  It is a film about nobodies, who often remain nobodies, making small choices that individually don’t mean much, but add up collectively into an event that defined a nation.

Well, back to reality

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman

Dear Readers,

So, Spiderman: Homecoming came out last week.  Yes, I saw it.  Yes, it is worth going to see.    It was thoroughly enjoyable with some great comedic moments, good character development, and some nice action sequences.  While the story felt a little disjointed at times, it came together well at the end, and worked well within the feel the film was going for.  Ultimately, this was a fun summer family film that, while not super original, did what it was trying to, and accomplished its goals admirably.

Immediately following the events of Captain America: Civil War, Spiderman has returned to his home in Queens, where he struggles to balance his typical teen school life with the superhero he is becoming.  Peter Parker sees Spiderman as his future, and he wants to move past the mundanities of high-school to join the Avengers and start saving the world.  Unfortunately, the world doesn’t seem to want his saving; Tony Stark brushes him to the side, telling him to keep a low profile and stay a “street level” hero, to keep working on the small things.  Peter struggles with wanting to be treated like an adult in a world that keeps treating him like a child.  This motivation lies at the heart of most teen movies, and it is well executed in Homecoming.  When Spiderman encounters several groups of street thugs who are using technologically advanced, alien based weaponry, he sets out to find the man building and selling this dangerous tech.  His search leads him to Adrian Toomes, a.k.a. the Vulture, a construction worker who lost his company due to the government takeover of clean-up after the Chitari invasion of New York.  He used illegally scavenged alien weaponry to create advanced technology which he then sold to the highest bidders, without regard for how the weapons would be used.  After multiple confrontations with Toomes, Spiderman finally defeats his opponent, earning the respect of Tony Stark, and acceptance into the Avengers.  He decides to turn down the opportunity, however, and stay in New York, helping the “little people” he sees being ignored by the more well known superheroes, and taking advantage of his time in high-school to grow and mature.

So Marvel as been doing this interesting thing with its movies; although they are all still “superhero” movies, the films have been drawing inspiration from the types and tropes of other specific genres.  Ant Man was basically a heist movie with a superhero overlay, Winter Soldier was a “wrongfully accused” spy movie, Guardians of the Galaxy (1 & 2) are basically superhero Star Wars.  Spiderman: Homecoming follows in this tradition; paying tribute to 1980’s John Hughes classics like the Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Ferris Buehler’s Day Off.  This keeps the comedy aspect of Homecoming pitch perfect; the delicate balance between typical high-school activities like going to class, crushing on an older girl, or getting detention, and interacting with world renowned heroes like Iron Man, the danger of fighting criminals, and the excitement of being a “hero,” provides a rich trove for conversational disconnects, absurd situational comedy, and double entendre.

One such occasion where the use of the “teen dram-edy” trope works very well occurs towards the end of the film (Spoilers!).  Having finally summoned up the courage to tell his crush, Liz, that he likes her, Peter Parker has invited her to homecoming with him and has arrived to pick her up.  In a “John Hughes” world, this is the moment where the girl’s father intimidates the boy with pointed questions, vaguely threatening comments, and askance sideways glances.  Homecoming follows the formula, but ups the ante by having Liz’s father turn out to be the Vulture, the villain Spiderman has been chasing and fighting the whole film.  The pointed questions becoming a true danger when Vulture figures out Peter Parker’s secret identity and the threatening comments turn into genuine threats should Spiderman continue his involvement.  The film does a great job of taking the building blocks of these classic teen films and incorporating the into the superhero storyline it is creating.

While the “John Hughes” tone works well for the most part, it does occasionally cause some issues.  At times the story feels episodic and predictable; it alternates between school and hero scenes methodically, with very little to distinguish one fight scene or school day from the next.  This hurts a number of the action scenes, which sometimes feel like more of an addendum to the film instead of central to the performance.  The best action sequence in the film is not the final, climactic battle, but instead occurs early on when Spiderman is required to rescue his classmates at the Washington Monument.  While the final battle alternates between moving to fast or too slow, this earlier sequence balances action with some interesting character moments, and seeing Spiderman confront a disaster situation rather than a specific villain was fascinating and a great opportunity for the character.  Most of the other battles, however, seem a bit phoned in, and while possessing some good action and interesting moments, overall fall flat in the grand scope of what Marvel has and can do with these sequences.

While the final battle was disappointing in its execution, the set-up of Toomes allows for a very good arc; creating a more memorable Marvel villain.  It was nice to have a villain that was not a corporate executive or religious fanatic.  The Vulture was an ordinary guy, trying to make his way in a world where the wealthy continue to get wealthier at the expense of the working people, where corporate elites control a bureaucratic government in order to maintain their power.  His motives were perfectly clear and reasonable; he isn’t a maniac, he isn’t looking for world domination, he just wants to support his family and move up in the world.  Adrian Toomes is an old school worker, just looking for the American dream.  Tony Stark and the Department of Damage Control created the Vulture through their refusal to acknowledge Toomes’ city contract, to compensate him for his work, and their disdain for his “inferior” qualifications.  His actions, while unjustifiable, and completely coherent and understandable.  This makes him a perfect foil for Spiderman, the friendly neighborhood hero who helps old ladies cross the street and stops bike thefts, but wants more, who constantly feels looked down upon or overlooked by Tony Stark and the Avengers, who wants an opportunity to move up in the world, but is denied that opportunity because he is young.  Ultimately, Peter Parker and Adrian Toomes face the same enemy, not each other, but themselves, and Tony Stark.  Their ambition drives them forward, while Tony Stark stands in their way.  Because he chooses to do the right thing, even at the expense of his own ambition, Peter is able to emerge victorious, having opened the door to advance with the Avengers, but choosing instead to let his ambition lie for the moment, and take advantage of the opportunities he has acting at the street level as a hero for "the little people.”  He doesn’t have to become Tony Stark to be a hero, in fact, he is the better hero for not being like Stark (who, lets face it, is a terrible hero who has caused more problems than he has solved in the Marvel universe).  By embracing the power he has as “the common man,” Spiderman is able to act heroically and inspire in a way that Iron Man never can.

So there are a few thoughts on Spiderman: Homecoming.  This highly enjoyable film employs the themes and techniques of a classic, John Hughes “dram-edy” to create a different kind of superhero movie.  Sometimes this technique works, as is the case during the climax of the movie when the Vulture discovers Peter Parker’s secret identity, sometimes it falls a bit flat, creating an episodic feel and impinging on the creativity of the action sequences.  Vulture is a great villain, and serves as a foil for Spiderman in a really interesting way, particularly considering the current social and political climate.  All in all, Homecoming was a friendly neighborhood movie, well worth seeing for the entire family.

Well, back to reality.

The Doctor is WHO?!?!

Dear Readers,

Fear not, a Spiderman: Homecoming review is in the works, but I just wanted to do a quick post on some news that has been blowing up all my social media.  So, Doctor Who? has a new doctor, and "gasp of horror," it's a woman! The B.B.C. just announced that Jodie Whittaker will be playing the 13th Doctor, and responses have been mixed, to say the least.  Some people are delighted to see a woman step into the iconic role and bring something new to the show.  Others, however, question the motives of the show-runners in casting Ms. Whittaker, and view the choice as tokenism, or selling out to political correctness.  As a longtime Doctor Who? fan, I want to add my two cents to the debate, and try to bring a little perspective to the debate.

First, I want to clarify that I am not familiar with Ms. Whittaker as an actress.  I don't know her work, and so I will say nothing about the specific choice for the role.  I am sure she is very qualified; a brief glance at her IMDb page shows performances in a number of excellent shows, and historically, the B.B.C. has a very good record for casting the Doctor.  So instead of looking at the choice of Ms. Whittaker in particular, I want to talk about the idea of casting a female Doctor, the pros and cons of such a decision, and what it might mean for the show.

In looking at many of the criticisms I have seen, number one has been the complaint that the choice to cast a woman as the Doctor is purely political, and an attempt to make the show appear progressive and open minded, to the detriment of the character, who is traditionally male.  I am of two minds on this critique.  Firstly, I am adamantly opposed to placing a woman in any position simply because "it has never been done before."  For more on this, check out my post from last year on feminism and the American presidential election (link).  Basically, it boils down to the fact that, in my opinion, it is just as sexist to cast a person in a role because they are a woman as it is to not cast them in that role because they are a woman.  Merit should be the rule for placing an individual in a position, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or creed.  So, yes, if the B.B.C. cast Ms. Whittaker simply because of social or political pressure to appear diverse and non-discriminatory, then yes, I am angry at the choice.  

On the other hand, I won't let myself get too upset because, in all honesty, we all knew it was coming.  Ever since show-runners introduced the idea that a Time Lord can regenerate into a body of the opposite sex (I believe it was the episode "The Doctor's Wife" that first opened the door), the inevitability of a female Doctor has been looming.  Many fans were actually upset that he choice was not made with the 12th Doctor.  And opening up the possibility of the gender transition has been a benefit for the show.  Michelle Gomez's Missy, or female version of the Master was one of the most interesting characters of the more recent seasons of the show, bringing a fresh interpretation to a classic character, and allowing the relationship between the Master and the Doctor to develop in new and interesting ways.  With the possibility allowed, and with Gomez's masterful performance, it was inevitable that we would eventually see a female Doctor, and the choice to allow that transition to happen sooner rather than later can be seen as a gamble that will hopefully pay off.

All this to say... Whovians always hate a new regeneration.  The choice for a new Doctor will always be controversial: "He is too young," "too old," "too white," or "still not ginger."  Fans of the show always struggle to say goodbye to the version of the character that we have come to know and love.  But each new regeneration of the Doctor wins our hearts, and brings new elements to the character.  I am really looking forward to seeing what new strengths Ms. Whittaker will bring to the Doctor, how having a woman play the role will change the character, and how the dynamic will change and stay the same between the Doctor and her companions.  Ultimately, Doctor Who? is a story about how people change, how they evolve over time, and how the events we experience and the people around us alter the very fabric of the person we were in the past.  This is the power of each new regeneration, and why, in the long run, I am hopeful about all of time and space in the TARDIS.

Well, back to reality.

Drawing Love: Romance in "Sword Art Online" and "Yuri!!! on Ice"

Dear Readers,

I wanted to do something a bit different before I returned to my regular superhero reviews.  With school being out, I have found myself with significant amounts of extra time.  I have been taking the opportunity to catch up with some different shows that friends have recommended I see, in a genre that I have, up to this point, failed to explore; anime.  Over the last month, I have blazed through six different shows in various genres, and I wanted to talk a bit about something I have really come to appreciate about the style, and that is the way they portray romance and love.

This might seem a bit out of character for the normal scope of my reviews.  Normally I stick with reviewing action stories that prioritize the progression of the story over sub arcs like romantic entanglements.  In my reviews, too, I tend to focus on the way that characters grow through the actions they take and their progress through the wider narrative.  The reason for this is not, as some might suspect, out of a dislike for the idea of romance, but actually results out of a deep affection for good romance and a dissatisfaction for the way in which love is often portrayed in popular culture.

You all know what I am talking about; the romantic comedy trope of the couple who constantly bicker, only to discover that they are truly, “in love” with each other.  The divorced couple who are flung back together only to discover that they “still have feelings” for each other, who are reunited by the end of the movie.  The woman who is dating a man who is kind and loyal who ends up leaving him for the edgy brooding fellow she just met but who she immediately felt “sparks” with.  I hate romantic comedies, situation comedies, and the portrayal of romance in popular culture in general because they glorify being “in love” over truly loving, because they emphasize fireworks over stability, and because, ultimately, they promote a view of romance that is selfish, lazy, and unrealistic.

That is why I have been pleasantly surprised to find romances I could actually cheer for in some of the anime shows I have encountered.  In particular I was drawn to the portrayals of love in Sword Art Online and Yuri!!! on Ice, two very different shows that both manage to pinpoint what good romance can be, love that seeks the good of the beloved over the good the self, love that delights in others, love that is stable despite the surrounding circumstances, love that is a choice as much as or more than it is a feeling.

Before I dive specifically into these shows, however, I want to clarify some terms that I will be using.  As an academic with an interest and delight in words, “love” is a difficult term to use.  This is because the term is so vague and so widely used that it sometimes lacks sufficient power and meaning.  So, in order to avoid confusion, I am going to go back to several of the Greek terms for love in my analysis.  The terms I will be using are agape, phileo, and eros.  Agape is unconditional love.  It is often used religiously to express the love that God has for man or that man should have for God.  This is a love that exists independent of any action on the part of the beloved.  Agape is love as a gift from the lover to the beloved, a gift that does not require any affection or expect any favors in return.  This love, more than any of the others, is a choice, an action more than a feeling.  It is possible and essential to show agape even when ones emotions are opposed to the loving action (the parent who is angry and hurt by the words of a child but still loves the child is the closest we can get to human agape).  Agape can also be used more widely to demonstrate a wider affection; the love of human kind, or the love that you give to another person simply because they exist (or from a Christian perspective, because they are made in the image of God).  The second type of love is phileo.  This is the love expressed between friends and equals.  It can also be described as “brotherly love,” or the affection that develops between two people that becomes so close that the two essentially become family to each other.  Again, phileo is not primarily an emotional love; phileo is choosing a family because of the affection you have for them, then choosing to protect that family regardless of how you are feeling at the moment because you care about them.  The last type of love I will discuss is eros.  This is the love most often associated with romance; sexual love, passion so great that it causes you to lose control of yourself.  Eros is intimate, physical, and ultimately emotional.  It is the type of love that checks rationality at the door and jumps in headfirst.  Ultimately, the expressions “falling in love” and being “in love” in general refer to eros, to physical attraction, emotional regard, and irrational passion.  There is a beauty in this type of love that stems from its heightened emotionality; passion provides vibrancy, and art is often unreasonable.  Thus, while eros does not have the same stability that is seen in agape or phileo, it provides a unique depth of emotion that makes it essential in a discussion of romance.

Ultimately, I believe that all three types of love are crucial in a healthy portrayal of romance.  We (non-Greeks) use love to refer to all these types of affection because there is crossover between the types, a unifying factor that binds them all together into a single concept, an entity that we call “love.”  Crossover occurs between agape and phileo when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his comrades, individuals he may not even know or like personally.  Agape and eros come together in the couple who is still deeply, passionately in love, even fifty years down the line.  They have weathered storms together, passed through hardships that would drown a purely erotic love, but their relationship is still defined by its emotional depths.  Finally, one of the most popular crossovers in modern culture is the intermingling of phileo  and eros.  I like to think of this melding as “bromance;” the close friendship between two individuals that has the potential to develop into an erotic passion.  Most of the “ships” that sail the wide waters of Tumblr have developed out of this desire to develop characters from phileo to eros.

Good romance integrates all three types of love; the selfless gift of affection for another person, the strong bond of family that binds the two individuals together, and the passionate depths of emotion and physical attraction that draw the two closer together.  In their own way, both Sword Art Online and Yuri!!! on Ice balance agape, phileo, and eros to portray healthy and heart warming romances.

Sword Art Online is a combination science fiction and fantasy story; it follows a young man, Kirito, as he begins playing a virtual reality fantasy game, only to discover that he, and all the other players are trapped in the game.  If they die in the game, they die in real life, and the only way out it to beat the game’s 100 dungeon levels and the final boss.  The show is a beautifully animated fantasy world with awesome monsters, great character development, and incredible action.  But the heart of the story is Kirito’s relationship with Asuna, a beautiful, talented young woman who becomes a leader of the forces trying to clear all the dungeon levels and beat the game.  When the two first meet, Kirito admires the young woman for her speed and skill, and the two begin the story simply as comrades in arms.  While Kirito is a lone wolf, a “solo player” who does not join guilds and tends to pursue missions on his own, Asuna becomes a leader, the gifted commander of the strike force that is trying to clear the levels, and a powerful and skilled player in her own right.  When the two meet for the second time, their relationship reflects a transition from phileo to one more representative of eros.  They embody a more typical romantic comedy relationship as their differences cause them to bicker; Asuna is particularly frustrated by Kirito’s seemingly nonchalant approach to clearing the dungeons and getting out.  It is only when she realizes that Kirito is still living life, even in this video game, taking the time to enjoy himself, to delight in the small things like the wind on his face or a nap on a summer afternoon, that Asuna begins to understand Kirito and the two can progress in their relationship.  Romance comes, not from the sparks that fly from their arguments with each other, but from the quiet understanding of each other and appreciation for their differences.  The relationship progresses as the two begin to fight more together in the higher level dungeons, learning to trust each other again in battle and back each other up with their unique skills.  Most action movie romances leave the relationship hear, with the two fighting together, protecting each other, and loving the badass hero that the other can be.  But this is not a healthy romance either; life is not always battle, and two people cannot constantly be fighting either with each other or beside each other.  What makes SAO special is the way Kirito and Asuna’s relationship is more than just bickering, more than just fighting beside each other, but that their romance takes the time to develop in the peaceful parts of life too.  Eventually, the two warriors decide to get married (in the game), and to take some time off just to be with each other.  They buy a cabin together in a forest, and the show takes two or three episodes to look at the two in their “married” life.  Kirito loves Asuna’s passion drive, the fire that pushes her to become on of the best players in the game, but he also loves the way she took the time and effort to learn to cook in the game and to figure out how to make flavors from home out of the materials she found in this new world.  Asuna admires Kirito’s skill as a warrior and swordsman, but she loves the way he enjoys the world; he delights in going fishing or finishing a quest where the only reward is butter for their dinner rolls.  The romance between the two is strongest, not during their passionate flirting or their dangerous quests, but in the quiet moments where they sit together in a rocking chair, just looking at the beautiful world around them.  It is the ability they have to remain together and happy through each of these seasons that convinces the viewer that these two really suit each other and have a chance for a lasting romance.  While further episodes and seasons see countless other women and men fall in love with both Kirito and Asuna, ultimately, the strength of their relationship, a relationship forged on passion, family, and sacrifice, has remained steady, a solid foundation from which they can pursue greater challenges and new adventures.

Yuri!!! on Ice is another anime show that exemplifies a more realistic and ultimately satisfying portrayal of romance.  The story follows Katsuki Yuri, a Japanese ice skater who fell apart in an international competition and is struggling to rekindle his love of skating.  His hero, Victor Nikiforov, sees him skating and decides to come to Japan and coach Yuri.  The two are joined by Yuri Plisetsky (known as Yurio), a young Russian skater whose punk attitude and anger management issues provide a nice contrast with the withdrawn Yuri Katsuki and the indelibly cheerful Victor.  From there the story is about the relationship between the two Yuri’s and Victor, as Victor helps Yuri build his self assurance and confidence, and helps inspire Yurio to look for beauty in his skating,  and as Yuri reminds Victor that there is more to life than competition and skating.  The relationship between the three is a beautiful melding of the various types of love; starting with a tension between eros and agape, which eventually melds into a love that is closer to phileo, but still retains the essential characteristics of all three loves.

Victor and Yuri’s relationship starts as a contrast between eros and agape.  Yuri exemplifies the lack of selfishness and less emotional aspects of agape.  He is constantly concerned with the feelings of his friends and family, constantly and unselfishly trying to please everyone around him.  He views his failure as letting down his family, his friends, and his hometown, and it is this failure that has become ultimately crippling for him.  Victor, in stark contrast, embodies eros.  He is physically and emotionally self assured; his declaration that he will become Yuri’s coach occurs as he stands naked in a hot spring, the very picture of erotic masculinity.  His confidence comes at a price, however, as those around him see him as self absorbed and “to good-looking and free with his favors.”  While Yuri hesitates to claim what he wants, Victor is constantly demanding.  As the two grow closer, however, their roles begin to be less carefully defined.

The catalyst for this transformation is Victor’s decision to choreograph a short program for each Yuri, programs that contrast and compliment with each other.  The song that both young men skate to is “In Regards to Love,” with two alternate arrangements entitled, appropriately enough, “Agape” and “Eros.”  In an effort to push Yuri and Yurio out of their comfort zones, Victor assigns Yurio to skate to “Agape” and Yuri to “Eros.”  The winner of the competition will get to make a demand of Victor, that Victor will meet.  When Victor asks each one what they will wish for if they win, Yurio states that he will demand Victor return to Russia with him and be his coach.  Victor then asks Yuri what he would like, and for the first time, Yuri is forced to ask himself what he really wants.  Up to this point, he has been doing what other people expected or responding to their wishes.  But now, someone is demanding that he assert himself, that he embrace the emotional “erotic” desires of his heart.  His answer is telling… he wants to eat his favorite food, which he only gets to eat when he wins, with Victor, and for Victor to continue being his coach, and to keep winning and eating pork cutlet bowls with Victor.  The three parts of Yuri’s eros are contained in that statement.  He wants to eat without feeling guilty… this is the first request that Yuri makes for himself, so when Yuri begins to figure out what his eros is, the first part is “pork cutlet bowl.”  His free skate begins as the “seduction of the pork cutlet bowl,” an homage to the temptation of food and the allure of flavor.  But eros is more than just food; it is fundamentally tied to pursuing what you most desire.  In Yuri’s case, that comes in the second part of the statement; the desire to win.  Up to this point, while Yuri has always desired to win, he has kept that desire hidden.  He has contented himself with saying “it is a privilege just to be here” and “this will be a great experience.”  By finally allowing himself to vocalize his desire to be the best, not just to be good, he is opening the door to pursue that desire to its fullest; he is removing the blocks he has mentally set up to his own success.  Finally, Yuri admits that he wants to do all this with Victor.  Victor is not just a coach, he is the deepest part of what makes Yuri, Yuri; Victor is the person who inspired Yuri to start skating, meeting Victor is what pushed Yuri to become as good as he has, and having Victor be his coach and a part of his life is what will push him to be a success.  For Yuri, learning eros is about learning what his own desires are, expressing them, and then allowing himself to pursue them.  This process is fundamentally transformative; the Yuri who can skate his own eros is a different man from the self conscious, un-confident, slightly chubby nerd we met in the first episode.  The Yuri who can skate his own eros is a man confident enough to display his feminine side, a man who claims to be “the fem fatale of pork cutlet bowls,” a man so confident in his sexuality that he is willing to “make the world hate him” because “he took Victor away from skating.”  Yuri’s transition from agape to eros is what allows him to transform his skating and become a greater competitor and a more fulfilled and confident person.

While Yuri must transition from agape to eros, Victor has to move the other direction.  While he is initially confident and self assured, he is also selfish.  He fails to consider the feelings of other in his actions, choosing to say or do whatever initially comes into his head.  This makes him forgetful, hurtful, condescending, and oblivious.  As he begins to care about Yuri, however, he begins to learn a less selfish side of love.  One critical transition occurs when he and Yuri go to the beach together.  In a moment of heartfelt concern, Victor asks Yuri what Yuri wants him to be; should he be a father figure, a friend, a boyfriend?  This is the first time we see Victor actively making an effort to take someone else's feelings into account, to put another's well being ahead of his own.  What makes this scene so delightfully poignant is Yuri’s response, “I just want you to be Victor Nikiforov…”  The person who Victor is is the person that Yuri wants, he doesn’t want Victor to have to change for him, even if Victor is willing to.  Ultimately, this is also what Victor wants for Yuri; instead of changing himself to fit what people want him to be, Victor just wants Yuri to be Yuri; the Yuri who is inside, who is sexy and confident and talented and one of the best skaters in the world.  Agape and eros come together in a desire for the best for the other person because that other person is special and worthy of being desired and pursued.  This love is not pure, selfish eros; it is not desiring the other person because they make the lover “happy.”  Rom-coms are filled with this type of love, a love that is purely based on the way another person makes the lover “feel.”  Yuri and Victor’s love is something more, a desire for the other person because the beloved is worth being desired, because the beloved is an amazing, talented, wonderful person.  This is eros tinted by agape, sexual desire fueled by awe and fascination and delight in another person’s soul, and it is one of the purest examples of romance that I have ever encountered.

It should be becoming evident that my disdain for romantic comedies and love of Sword Art Online and Yuri!!! on Ice are tied to my view on romance.  These views are founded on my personal experience.  Maybe this is unique, but when I look at the successful romances around me, from that of my parents and grandparents, to older couples in my church, I see romance founded on both eros and agape.  This makes it frustrating to watch most romance based popular movies; they are all formulaic, and based on the unfortunate conception that “romance” is bickering, sparks, aggressive displays of affection, that ends with getting married or being married a year.  But “romance” is more than that.  Romance is quietly standing behind the beloved and allowing them to shine.  Romance is knowing each other so well that you don’t need to talk for an entire afternoon, simply delighting in the other’s presence.  Romance is the slow, steady warmth of a wood-burning stove in winter; comforting and safe; true romance is constructive; it is about building each other up, not constantly tearing at each other with harsh words or daily fights.

This is one of the reason I find Tumblr “ships” so fascinating.  Because I think that people subconsciously recognize the un-reality of rom-com romances.  Instead, they gravitate toward relationships that embody qualities of agape and phileo that more closely resemble genuine relationships that actually work.  The constant pairing of male co-stars in romantic fan fiction stems (I believe) from the healthy friendships these characters embody, healthy friendships that actually provide a solid foundation for romance.  Kirk and Spock, “Destiel,” “Johnlock,” “Sterrick” “Klance,”  I could go on, but slash fiction is romance based on phileo that approaches agape, and then verges into eros.  Perhaps Tumblr “shippers” (myself included) are so invested in these relationships because they are closer to couples that work, couples that work on their relationships and invest in their success.  Ultimately, romance is work.  It requires an investment of time, effort, and more than just emotion.  Sword Art Online and Yuri!!! on Ice both present relationships that develop over time, relationships that require effort on the part of both parties, relationships founded on a willingness to sacrifice for the other person, not simply to use that person to satisfy emotional, mental, or physical desires, and this is why they are more satisfying than any romantic comedy I have ever seen.

Sorry if I get a bit scatterbrained toward the end here... I have been working on this post for over a month, with life, the universe, and everything getting in the way of completing it.  I have reached the point where I just need to finish, or I will never get this posted, so again, apologies for the abrupt and less polished finished.  Stay tuned over the next couple of weeks for my review of Spiderman: Homecoming, and I may do another anime analysis at some point too, so look forward to that.

Anyway, back to reality!

So...What's So Wonderful About Wonder Woman?

Dear Readers,

So... I'm sorry about the delay in getting this posted.  I had another review that I was trying to get published before this one, but the summer has gotten a bit crazy, and I haven't been able to give that post the attention it needs.  So I am going to throw out a quick review of Wonder Woman, an hopefully get that other post finished by next week.  As always, spoilers for the movie, so if you don't want to know about the big plot twist at the end, don't read past the third paragraph.

There is always a bit of trepidation going into a D.C. movie these days.  With the disappointments that were Man of Steel, Batman Vs. Superman, and Suicide Squad, D.C. fans have learned not to get their hopes up with this new extended universe.  So, I went into Wonder Woman hopeful, but not necessarily expecting to much.  What I got was actually better than I expected; a good movie that embraced the best parts of the comic book genre and character, while still remaining thoughtful and engaging.  The cast was excellent, the story well constructed, and overall it took great advantage of the source material.  While this film was not necessarily my favorite superhero movie of the year, it was the best entry into the D.C. cinematic universe so far, and went a long way in providing hope for future D.C. endeavors.

The story, effects, and characters all unite to make Wonder Woman a highly entertaining, enjoyable, and good film.  As superhero origins go, it bears some striking similarities to the first Captain America movie.  A period piece taking place during World War 1, Wonder Woman is able to embrace a nostalgic idealism and innocence that is often lacking in the more contemporary origin stories.  The story follows Diana Prince as she leaves her Amazonian homeland in an effort to stop WW1 by destroying Ares, the god of war and (in Diana's mind) the inciting cause for the violence and bloodshed.  The film is a heartwarming combination of fish out of water (Diana has never left her homeland and stands out awkwardly in 20th century London), female empowerment in a world of male oppression, and amazing superhero battles.  While each of these elements is present, the story never feels bogged down needless philosophizing or social justice baggage.  Instead, each of these elements is well balanced by thoughtful character development, personal interaction, and plenty of awesome fight action.  Particularly compelling is the Diana's journey from London to the front lines, as she gets to know her companions and begins to realize that the world is more complicated than her upbringing had lead her to believe.  This culminates in one of the most awesome battle sequences I have seen, when Wonder Woman marches into No-Man's-Land to save people whose village has been overrun by German soldiers.  The whole arc is well constructed and well realized. and demonstrates the power that an emphasis on character and personal relationships can have in a superhero movie.

One of D.C.'s strengths in their cinematic universe has been the excellent casting, and Wonder Woman takes full advantage of this fact.  Gal Gadot is fantastic as the Amazon princess; bringing a brilliant combination of innocence, idealism, and badassery to the roll.  She always stands out; on an island of warrior women, she is exceptional, in the dirt and grime of early 20th century London she is an exotic beauty, and in the trenches of World War 1 she becomes a warrior goddess of hope and victory.  And somehow, Gadot is able to shine in all these locations and situations; she is personable yet peerless, kind yet violent, idealistic and innocent.  The mess of contradictions that make Wonder Woman so unique are all brought to life through Gal Gadot's superb performance.  She is upheld by a stellar supporting cast; Chris Pine in particular is dazzling as Steve Trevor: WW1 spy and pilot, who balances out Diana's hopeful idealism with a realism that edges toward cynicism, but never quite crosses that line.  Pine's Trevor does a great job taking Diana's idiosyncrasies in stride; balancing period prejudices with personal pragmatism and unadultered delight in the magnificent woman he is traveling with.  The rest of the cast takes their cue from Pine, approaching Gadot's Wonder Woman with a mix of admiration, trepidation, and ultimately exhilaration at what she do.

If there is one casting weakness, it is the surprise(ish) reveal that David Thewlis's Sir Patrick is actually Ares, the god of war.  I go back and forth on this choice.  On the one hand, it was nice to see the film thoughtfully undercutting the audiences preconception of the character by having the pasty, wimpy British dude be the big bad god of war.  It fit really well with the movie's theme that often times good and evil are not as clear cut as they might initially seem.  Unfortunately, even with the aid of C.G.I. Thewlis simply does not embody the violence, the rage, the fearsome nature of Ares, either from mythology or from the Wonder Woman comics.  While the character works fine for the story, I felt the casting could have been a bit stronger, and the finale suffered slightly for the choice.  All three main villains have difficulty, as they all come across as slightly cartoon-ish and a bit melodramatic for my tastes.  However, this is almost inevitable given Wonder Woman's innocence and idealism; oftentimes a hero that stands for a particular ideal ends up facing a villain defies those ideals, and consequentially is evil for evil's sake, which is less realistic and compelling than those villains who pursue good ends to an extreme or embody the same qualities as the hero but express them in a different manner.  Unfortunately, both Ludendorf and Dr. Maru are simply psychopaths who delight in the pain of others, while Ares, while more philosophically complicated is so utterly non-intimidating that he loses power as a villain.

Along with the (mostly) excellent casting, Wonder Woman also goes back to the basics of the superhero.  While Man of Steel and Batman vs. Superman demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the motives of the main characters (more on that here), Wonder Woman unashamedly proclaimed the virtue of a hero who chooses that path because of her character, not her history.  Diana wants to be a hero because she cares about people; she is not driven by the death of her parents or a similarly traumatic life event.  She wants to be a hero because she wants to help others.  Like Captain America in the M.C.U., Wonder Woman is a true hero, a hero who stands up for her ideals instead of against the actions of others, and this is what makes her such a compelling symbol and example to the people around her.  Characters like Wonder Woman, Captain America (and in a perfect world, Superman) inspire others to be better, stronger, more hopeful because of their examples.  While this type of heroism is less popular to our present, cynical movie goers, it is a necessary component for these extended superhero universes.  Idealistic goodness inspires greater heroism, while the gritty, "realistic" pursuit of justice can only inspire admiration or fear, but not necessarily imitation.  A heroic team needs idealism as much as it needs pragmatism in order to function, and Wonder Woman's innocence and essential goodness is a breath of fresh air in the D.C. world of gritty, angst ridden superheroes who are constantly questioning themselves and moping.

While I thought Wonder Woman was good, I don't know that it was as good as the hype has led people to believe.  At times the story feels a bit rushed in places and predictable in others.  While it was refreshing to have a female superhero starring in her own movie, that was the only "unique" aspect of the film.  Otherwise, it was a pretty generic superhero origin film that didn't really do anything new.  So while Wonder Woman was a bright and shining example of how to make a good D.C. superhero movie, it still fell short of all that we know a superhero movie can be.  It is my third favorite superhero movie of the year so far, falling far behind The Lego Batman with Guardians of the Galaxy 2 narrowly beating it out for second (reviews for each of those here and here).  Ultimately, what was so wonderful about Wonder Woman was that it was good enough; good enough to keep alive my hopes for the D.C. cinematic universe, and good enough to keep alive my hopes for future movies starring female superheroes, directed by talented female directors, that place women on an equal footing in a male dominated genre.

Well, back to reality.

The Guardians of the Galaxy Strike Back

Dear Readers,

So summer movie season has officially begun, and first up for this years amazing looking lineup is Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.  The surprise success of the original Guardians of the Galaxy has been attributed to the fun, quirky characters, the over the top humor, and underlying emotional heart of the story.  This was a lot for a sequel to live up to, but fortunately, the makers of Vol. 2 decided to look to one of the greatest sequels of all time for inspiration and imitate many of the elements that made The Empire Strikes Back such an effective film.

There is a lot going on with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, so I will try to quickly summarize and review the film before moving on to some more technical analysis.  The film picks up immediately after the events of the first, with Peter Quill (AKA Starlord), Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and baby Groot being hired to protect a technologically advanced society (the Sovereign) from an inter dimensional monster trying to steal super batteries.  The mission is a success, but Rocket steals the batteries, bringing the wrath of the Sovereign on the Guardians.  While they are being attacked, they are rescued by an unknown force and then crash land on a deserted planet.  There they learn that the person who saved them was actually Starlord’s father, a powerful being who takes Peter, Drax, and Gamora to his home planet to teach Peter about his heritage.  Rocket, Groot, and Nebula (who the Guardians captured for the bounty on her head) are left to try to repair the ship.

The Sovereign, upset at being double crossed, hire Yondu and his ravager crew to capture and kill the Guardians.  They catch up with Rocket, Groot, and Gamora, but the crew mutiny when Yondu tries to protect the Guardians.  They are all captured, but they eventually escape and to join Starlord, Gamora, Drax, and new companion Mantis, a powerful empath who can read and project emotions into the minds of those she touches.  The third act of this film is an emotional rollercoaster, and I don’t want to spoil any of it.  Long story short, shenanigans ensue on Starlord’s father’s planet involving the Sovereign, the Guardians, and a potentially universe ending catastrophe.

Vol. 2 embodies everything that was right with the first film; the emotional heart, the wisecracking scoundrel characters, the fast pace, and humor, while building the story inward, outward, and upward.  The action is great (for the most part); like Dr. Strange, this film takes advantage of the vast potentialities of a massive universe and delight in the possibilities of its genre.  But Vol. 2 is more than just a beautiful action movie.  The real depth of this film is in its characters.  Watching the interactions between Mantis and Drax, or Yondu and Rocket, or Baby Groot and the entire cast, or Peter Quill and his father is a reminder that the key to storytelling is compelling characters.  Each individual grows and changes because of his or her conversations with their companions.  Sometimes it is only in small ways; a reminder of a lost family, a sweet moment, a dance, a song, but each of those moments adds up to a new understanding of the characters and why they are the person they have become.  By making time for slow moments, for conversation, for growth, Vol. 2 was able to create some of the most relatable (even as an insectoid alien, a talking raccoon, and a cybernetic psychopath) characters in the MCU, and to allow for beautifully heartbreaking scenes at the film’s climactic conclusion.

To sum up the review… Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a well crafted and beautifully embodied film.  The action scenes are fun, the humor is on point, the characters develop wonderfully, which brings an emotional heart to the story that can sometimes be lacking in superhero films.  Thoroughly enjoyable, this film is a must see for any fan of superhero movies, along with anyone who likes movies with heart, or anyone who likes space-battles, or wisecracking scoundrels.

From here on out, I am going to drop into analysis, so there will be spoilers for the movie.  Please go see the film before you read on from here… it is well worth it.

I mentioned at the top of the review that Vol. 2 drew inspiration from The Empire Strikes Back on how to make an awesome sequel.  The similarities between the film are many; the emphasis on the relationship between Starlord and his father, the incorporation of more characters into the team, the splitting up of the team into different groups during the middle of the film, only to have them reunited at the end, and particularly, the theme of loss.  Empire was, in many ways, a traumatic film to see as a child.  The good guys don’t win… they barely escape with their lives.  Luke has left his training and lost his hand, Han Solo has been captured, Lando has lost his position at Cloud City, C3PO is in pieces, and nothing has improved for the rebellion.  Similarly, and in many ways more subtly, Vol. 2 is about dealing with loss, particularly the loss of family.  Starlord has been defined by the loss of his family; he never knew his father, and he watched his mother die of a brain tumor.  He was kidnapped immediately after, and grew up on a ravager spaceship, with the constant threat of being eaten or abandoned.  When he meets his father (Ego), Peter Quill believes that this is the opportunity to have the family he has been looking for.  Not only that, but his father offers him all he could ever want; a planet he can shape according to his own desires, immortality, and the promise of eternity together as father and son.  This seeming paradise, however, is only an illusion.  Ego’s promise is of an eternity alone, an eternity without family, immortality at the price of his humanity, and paradise with no one to share it.  Ultimately, Ego’s “fatherhood” comes at the cost of his real family, the Guardians.  This is contrasted by the fatherhood offered by Yondu.  Although he was not an ideal father figure, Quill comes to realize that the ravager protected him, cared for him, and taught him because he really loved him, a love that was not a selfish, consuming love, like Ego’s, but a love that was willing to sacrifice for the sake of others.  Ultimately, however, this realization is bittersweet because Yondu sacrifices himself to save Peter, and the hero is left alone, both his father figures destroyed by Ego’s consuming selfishness.  Loss becomes the consistent catalyst of change for Starlord; the loss of his mother heralded the change in his kidnapping, and the discovery of a new family in the ravagers.  Loss of his biological father heralded the change in his perspective on his mother’s death and his own kidnapping, which led to the discovery of Yondu’s fatherly role, then the loss of Yondu becomes a further catalyst for change in recognizing his place in the Guardians team and the discovery of the family he has there.  Victory and change are not possible without loss, and Starlord’s journey illustrates the power the motif can have in storytelling.

It is not just Starlord who exemplifies the theme of loss in Vol. 2  Each of the secondary characters also undergo loss which becomes transformative.  Gamora and Mantis both undergo a loss of innocence.  Gamora must confront her past when her conversations with Nebula reveal that, in her rush to protect herself from her abusive father, she had destroyed her relationship with her sister, who just wanted a family.  This process also forces her to come to grips with her feelings for Peter Quill.  In the end, although Gamora loses the superiority she felt over her sister, her gains outweigh her loss as the dropping of her barriers allows her to open up to a relationship with both Nebula and Starlord.  Mantis’ loss of innocence is also constructive.  Starting out as a naive young woman with no social skills and a total lack of confidence in her own power to single handedly holding Ego at bay so the other Guardians could complete their missions.  This development is primarily due to her conversations with Drax whose fatherly presence allows Mantis to separate from her dependence on Ego and assert her own individuality.  Ultimately, Mantis loses her home and her patron, but she gains self assurance, and a new family who will love her by building her up.

Drax himself is an interesting example of the theme of loss.  While Drax does not specifically lose something in the film, it is the loss that he has undergone prior to the events of the film that has been formational for his character and proves critical in the development of others.  Drax’s wife and children were killed, which is what motivated his character arc in the first film.  Having gotten his revenge on the man who killed his family, a huge burden seems to have been lifted from Drax’s shoulders.  In this film he is lighthearted, taking delight in the joking and banter that defines the Guardians.  He also recognizes that the team is his new family, and he is the steady character who builds up those around him.  For all his steady lightheartedness, the pain of his loss is still present.  It is there when he talks to Peter Quill about some people being dancers and other not.  It is there when he talks to Mantis about how much he misses his family.  The pain of loss is still there, but instead of being channeled into rage or hatred, he draws on it to help the people around him.  It is Mantis’ feeling of Drax’s loss that causes her to change sides.  Drax’s loss becomes a catalyst of change for those experiencing loss around him.  Similarly, Nebula’s loss is not one within the story, but prior to the events occurring.  Nebula never had the same assurance that Gamora had because she was constantly in the shadow of her more powerful sister.  When the two would fight and Gamora would win, Nebula would lose something; Thanos took her eye, gave her a metallic arm, constantly “upgrading” his daughter so she would be “more equal” to her sister.  Nebula lost parts of her body, she lost her innocence, and she lost her sister to her abusive father who constantly pitted his daughters against each other.  It is only by recognizing this loss that she is able to move forward and regain her relationship with Gamora.  In the end, her loss is a catalyst for her own transformation from villainous minion to empowered Guardian, along with Gamora’s realization that she had hurt her sister and their subsequent reconciliation.  Even though they were not temporally present in the film, Drax’s and Nebula’s pasts emphasize the theme of loss and its importance as an agent for change.

Finally, we come to the unlikely pairing of Rocket and Yondu.  With the exception of Peter Quill, Yondu loses the most of anyone in this film.  When the film opens, Yondu is at the bottom; he has lost respect of the Ravager community because he traded in children (taking Ego’s offspring to him, where they were eventually killed), and he has lost the respect of his crew because they think he has gone soft.  He loses his whistle arrow temporarily when Gamora shoots off his head fin, and he looses most of his spaceship when his crew mutinies and he has to fight his way off.  But again, this loss is a catalyst for growth.  It is only when he has nothing that Yondu is able to realize what is important; looking at Rocket, Yondu sees a reflection of himself and chooses to take a new path.  Instead of looking out only for himself, Yondu chooses to help rescue the other Guardians.  He places his value, not in the things he owns or controls, but in the people he cares about, is thus is able to step forward as Starlord’s surrogate father, Rocket’s friend, and a true Guardian of the Galaxy.  Similarly, Rocket is hugely affected by loss in this film.  First, he is coming off the loss of his best friend.  While Groot is still physically alive, he has been reduced to a childlike version of himself; instead of having a best friend, Rocket is now responsible for a child.  While Rocket handles this transition with a surprising amount of maturity, the loss of Groot drives him to push away those closest to him, which he does by endangering the team needlessly (by stealing the batteries from the Sovereign), and with his caustic attitude and venomous dialog.  Rocket is afraid of loss, so he pushes people away from him so he won’t be hurt.  This characteristic is echoed by Yondu, who has also done the same, pushing away people he should have relied on in order to make himself seem tough.  It is this similarity that enables the two to become good friends, and that makes the ending of the film where Yondu sacrifices himself so poignant.  Rocket has finally opened up and allowed himself to make another friend, and he is going to lose that person.  Ultimately, however, this loss allows Rocket to take a new step forward; instead of pushing people away because he is afraid they will get hurt, he can instead choose to protect them.  In a sad moment, Rocket chooses to fly away and leave his new friend behind in order to protect Drax, Gamora, Mantis, Groot, and Nebula.  He does what he must to protect his friends, his family, because of Yondu’s example.

What makes Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 so powerful is not just the presence of loss, but the fact that loss serves as a formational part of the characters’ experience.  Each individual does not just lose things because it hurts the audience to see the characters lose, but because those losses lead to greater achievements or to a deeper family ties or wider understanding.  It is not that the loss itself has meaning, but that the characters use the circumstances of loss to transcend their own emotions and build meaning into their actions.  They make their own loss have meaning, and this is what makes them compelling, admirable, and relatable. 

I could probably say more, but I think this is as good a place to stop as any.  Vol. 2 is a well constructed film that deals brilliantly with the theme of loss, taking the powerful choices pioneered in The Empire Strikes Back and exploring them with nuance and depth.  As far as sequels go, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 stands as one of the best I have ever seen because it emphasizes character built through an engaging and entertaining narrative.

Well back to reality.

Small Screen Superheroes; Large Scale Stories

Dear Readers,

It’s no secret that I love superheroes.  There is just something so compelling about heroes who transcend the limits of human capabilities, something so fascinating about stories of good, evil, and the grey areas in between, something so uplifting about watching characters of incredible power struggle with their dramatic foils or darker natures.  And right now is an amazing time to be alive and writing if you love superheroes.  In my last post, I detailed my thoughts on some upcoming superhero films based on their trailers (link), but now I want to talk a bit about the television versions of these beloved characters.

The best place to start when talking about T.V. and superheroes is, undoubtedly, the D.C. television universe, or “CW-verse” as it is more popularly known.  This universe includes Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow.  While each show has had its struggles this season, there have definitely been unique and interesting elements that kept bringing me back week after week.

Arrow, as the most solidly established show has had some rocky ground to cover this season, as Oliver Queen is forced (once again) to confront the darkness inside of him after his decision to kill Damian Darke.  The problem I have with this season is that we have been forced, over the course of five seasons now, to continually watch Oliver struggle with his “darkness.”  I understand that the struggle against internal darkness is perpetual, but I thought that over the previous seasons we had seen Oliver make a lot of progress, and mature and develop as a character.  This season regressed him a bit, causing him to continually question his own strength of character and morality.  I understand that choosing to kill someone is a massive choice that has repercussions on the individual psyche, but I would like to see him deal with those repercussions in a manner that is consistent with his previous development over the course of the show.  That being said, there are a couple of thing I have really liked about this season.  It is no secret that Arrow knocks off Batman a lot, and one of the most interesting ways they have done so recently has been in the widening of Team Arrow.  Originally just Oliver, his friend and bodyguard John Diggle, and hacker extraordinaire, Felicity Smoak, the team has widened to include the tech based hero Mr. Terrific, the rough around the edges, street wise Mad Dog, a new Black Canary, and the magic based Rag Man.  The addition of each of these characters has altered the dynamic on the team in new and interesting ways, as they mirror or oppose the original team members in ways that highlight the way those old characters have changed over the years.  All in all, this season of Arrow has provided interesting new characters while allowing for new developments in the old ones.  Unfortunately, it is sometimes hindered by the darker tone and melodramatic mopey-ness of the original cast.  Overall, a good watch, but never my first priority on any given week.

Almost as established as Arrow, and certainly receiving wider attention is The Flash.  While Arrow was defined by its dark, gritty, “Batman” like approach to the superhero genre, The Flash reached success by being deliberately campy, lighthearted, a tad melodramatic, while still developing interesting characters and insightful story arcs.  This most recent season has continued in that tradition, including more lighthearted episodes like “Duet,” a musical episode, and “Dead or Alive,” a delightful action chase episode in which Barry and friends have to battle a (very sexy) inter-dimensional bounty hunter.  But this season has also had its struggles, mainly in the relationship between Barry Allen and his romantic interest, Iris West, and with the developments in Caitlin Snow’s character.  The chemistry between Barry and Iris has always been one of the weaker aspects of the show, and because Iris’s immanent death is the inciting incident for this season, the relationship has been pushed to the forefront.  The Flash is at its strongest when Barry is focused on saving Central City; he is a genuinely good hero who is fighting to make the world a better place.  By putting a selfish spin on his heroics (he is trying to “save the woman he loves”), the heart of the character is lost.  Similarly, Caitlyn’s struggle with the apparent inevitability of her turning into her evil meta-human counterpart, Killer Frost, shifts the focus of the story away from the external mission of saving the world to the less compelling internal struggle to save herself.  Again, while it is possible to have characters struggle with their internal darkness or their selfish desire, with a character like the Flash, who is a genuinely good and well intentioned hero, the focus on the inner darkness makes the storytelling disjointed and less compelling.  For all that, there have been some wonderful developments this season, again with the widening of the team and the development of secondary characters.  Cisco Ramon has really come into his own this season; with the departure of Dr. Harrison Wells, Cisco has become the foremost scientific mind on the show, and with the development of his meta-human powers he has also had opportunities for some choice heroics.  We have also had the addition of a third iteration of Harrison Wells, H.R., whose lack of scientific background/intellect and quirky social skills are beautifully balanced by over-bounding enthusiasm and a deep emotional sensitivity.  The new Wells is everything the old Well was not, and it has been fascinating to see the character carve out his own niche on the team, despite his obvious shortcomings.  Another delightful addition has been Julian Albert, an antisocial meta-human specialist whose transition from antagonist to valued member of team Flash has been fascinating and well conceived.  Much in the way that  Eddie Thawne and Jay Gerrick/Zoom served as mirrors for Barry in the first two seasons, Julian’s well intentioned desire to help, complete lack of social skills, and thoroughly British sensibilities contrast and reflect Barry’s nature in interesting and compelling ways.  While season 3 of The Flash, has had its bumpy moments, the integration of new characters and thoughtful development of some old ones has made it must view T.V. every week.

While Arrow and The Flash have sometimes been a slog this season, Supergirl has been a highlight of my T.V. week.  The show has retained (most of) the optimism and joy of the first season, while exploring new directions for characters.  Particularly delightful has been the relationship between Supergirl and Mon-El, a prince from Krypton’s sister planet Daxom, whose epicurian lifestyle and carpe diem attitude contrast nicely with Kara’s staunch morality and heroic persona.  It has been a pleasure seeing these two  work through their differences and begin to appreciate each other for their own strengths.  I have also enjoyed watching the friendship between James Olsen and Win Schott develop this season.  With Win working at the DEO and James becoming the superhero Guardian, there have been some really interesting opportunities for the show to look at what it means to be a hero, the importance of people who work behind the scenes, and the cost of choosing a life of heroics.  Win and James' friendship has provided a nice foil for the friendship between Kara and her sister Alex, as each explores the dynamic between open heroism and behind the scenes support.  Another wonderful part of this series has been the team-ups with other shows.  There have been two major cross over events this year; “Invasion” which crossed over all four “CW-verse” shows, and “Duet” which crossed over with The Flash.  Both crossovers brought the shows closer together and provided opportunities for the ever growing cast of heroes to show their capabilities.  Supergirl in particular shined in these opportunities, as her position as an outsider (alien, from a different universe) has allowed her to provide an “other” perspective on the problems and potential of the other shows.  She is also immensely powerful in comparison with the other heroes, which has created an interesting dynamic and opportunity for growth in the heroes from Arrow, or Legends of Tomorrow.  All this being said, there have been a couple of minor disappointments with this season.  First has been the loss of Cat Grant for the season.  While Cat Grant walked a fine line between being an frustrating and annoying character and being a wise mentor, she provided a mature, successful female role model for Kara.  In a show where most of the mature women turn out to be evil, it was refreshing to have a successful, powerful woman who could be the voice of experience to the growing Kara.  Each of the other show heroes have their mentors; Oliver has Diggle, Barry has Joe West, Jay Gerrick, and Harrison Wells (all three of them).  While there are still older, mature characters on Supergirl (J’onn J’onz and Snapper Carr), there is not the same female presence that we had the in first season, and I think the show is a bit lacking for it.  Similarly frustrating has been the portrayal of Alex Danvers as lesbian this season.  While I understand the desire to add sexual diversity, and while I felt the choice was consistent with Alex’s character, I don’t like the way it has been over-emphasized.  This is a consistent problem with the “CW-verse” shows generally, but it comes to a point in Supergirl.  The show is so “in your face” with its “enlightened” view of sexuality.  Every episode there has to be a reminder that this character is lesbian, that this character has a girlfriend, that this character finally came out of the closet.  It overemphasizes Alex’s sexuality to the detriment of her wider character development.  She is a smart, capable, badass character who has been reduced to nothing more than her sexual orientation.  Of course I understand the difficulty of portraying a loaded concept like divergent sexuality tastefully, but I also know it can be done very well.  For all its faults, the MTV show Teen Wolf does an amazing job portraying differences in sexuality.  Characters are gay without it being a big deal; that is just who they are, a (minor) part of the sum of who they are as a person.  Supergirl could stand to take a page from the Teen Wolf playbook and present Alex as a character who happens to be lesbian, but mostly as a character who is a brilliant scientist, a strong, capable agent, and a loving and compassionate sister.  It is these qualities that make the character interesting and likable, regardless of the type of person she likes to have sex with.

The final “CW-verse” show is D.C.’s Legends of Tomorrow.  This show follows a “ragtag group” of heroes and villains as time travel to protect history from villains who would rewrite it for their own benefit.  The first season of this show was thoroughly campy but also delightfully enjoyable.  This most recent season was able to offset a number of the shows initial flaws while maintaining the sense of wonder and absurdity that made the show enjoyable in the first place.  From a strictly technical perspective, the decision this season to eliminate a lot of the “poster shot” moments (elaborately contrived moments where each hero strikes an awesome pose mid battle for a sweeping camera camera shot) was a definite improvement.  The season also embraced the delight in time travel; allowing the heroes to visit various historical periods such as the Revolutionary War and American Civil War, World War 1 and 2, Arthurian England, the Apollo 13 moon mission  to name a few, along with various “future” locations, and creating opportunities for the Legends to meet famous individuals such as Einstein, Al Capone, George Lucas, and J.R.R. Tolkien.  The delight the show takes in the time travel sections is obvious and a large part of the show’s charm.  This season also had some good character additions; Nate Haywood (aka Citizen Steel) joined the group along with Amara (Vixen), with the Justice Society of America (the 1940s version of the Justice League) making multiple appearances.  Haywood’s addition seems an attempt to bring a sense of historical verisimilitude to the show which creates a humorous dilemma when the rules of time travel mean that history is constantly changing, while Vixen provides a much needed feminine presence while proving continually that she can go toe to toe with the boys and come out on top.  While Legends of Tomorrow is not necessarily as thematically dark or involved as Arrow, or even The Flash, it has had its more serious moments.  Watching Sarah Lance struggle with the burden of leadership and with her own doubts about whether she can be a hero, seeing Martin Stein discovering that his meddling in time has altered his own history and he now has a daughter that he never knew, and watching Nate and Amara come to terms with their families' pasts and future, have shown that Legends has the ability to make it, not just on the merit of its fun time travel, but on character development and emotional involvement as well. (On a parenthetical side note: my favorite episode of any superhero show this year was from Legends of Tomorrow, and was the episode “Fellowship of the Spear,” where they went back to World War 1 and met J.R.R. Tolkien on the battlefield.  The episode was rife with Lord of the Rings allusions and was a delightful combination of nerdy reference and epic quest.)

While the D.C. “CW-verse” shows are the most well known, and arguably the best, superhero shows on T.V. right now, there are a few others that bear consideration.  In the Marvel universe, the most recent additions are the latest season of Agents of SHIELD, and the Netflix series Iron Fist.

This season of Agents of SHIELD has been underwhelming to say the least.  I had high hopes for this season given what the trailers indicated the show would be about, and how it would relate to the most recent properties in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  Unfortunately, the hype surrounding the inclusion of Ghost Rider on the show, and the potential of an android sorceress have been completely overwhelmed by the show’s less interesting factors including Sky/Daisy/Quake’s emotional damage, the political battle between humans in the Inhumans, or the new director of SHIELD.  While any one of these factors could be interesting in the right context, each one is given minimal time while the show bounces around between this and the really cool concepts they are building through the Darkhold/Ghost Rider/Ava the android story-lines.  Even these story lines, which seemed to be building to a really cool climax seemed to fizzle out a bit.  When Ava reads the Darkhold (an evil magical book that holds the "secrets of the universe") in order to save Coulson and Fitz from another dimension, it was a really cool set up for the potential of a powerful sorceress android who could manipulate magic as science/science as magic.  However, this possibility lasted less than an episode before it was implied that Ava would be evil, and barely an episode more before we discovered that Ava was a pawn being used by her creator for evil purposes with no agency of her own.  What could have been a really interesting direction for the character; a robot who believes in the power of science with all the knowledge of the Darkhold at her disposal was reduced to cliches.  The same thing happened with Ghost Rider; this is a really cool character who could have been totally awesome.  Instead, the show pushes his character to the periphery to focus on the Inhuman conflicts, and fails to embrace the post-Dr. Strange world of Marvel in which magic can be totally awesome.  I was really looking forward to the show elaborating more fully on the role of magic in the Marvel Extended Universe (MEU), and was sorely disappointed to see them focusing on the Inhumans, to the detriment of the show.

While Agents of SHIELD consistently struggles with keeping a consistent tone and story-line with its ties to the MCU, Marvel’s Netflix shows have been very strong, taking advantage of the specificity of the medium and using the opportunity to challenge the status quo of superhero T.V.  While Marvel’s Iron Fist was a well constructed superhero show that kept interest and was thoroughly enjoyable, it was not a product of the same caliber as what we have come to expect from Marvel’s Netflix shows.  I am not saying Iron Fist was bad; there was some really good character development, some fun martial arts sequences, some interesting analyses on the treatment and stigmatization of the mentally ill.  But in comparison with season one of Daredevil, with its interesting integration of violent action, faith driven heroism, and struggles with disability, or with Jessica Jones or even Luke Cage.  I was whelmed by Iron Fist; it was exactly what I expected, but it did not manage to be anything more, and that was disappointing.  Of the Netflix "Defenders," Iron Fist is one of the most powerful and interesting characters.  Orphaned at a young age an raised in a hidden city in Nepal (kind of), Danny Rand literally has turned himself into a living weapon.  He can channel his chi into his hand and punch through steel, and heal himself and others through a similar process.  This should have been an awesome character to watch, a character who is dealing with having brought himself to the height of his potential physically, but who is still struggling to find his emotional and psychological center.  Instead, we got a formula Netflix superhero show.  Granted, it is a good formula, and a formula that works; very good fight choreography, the infamous “hallway” battle, recognition of deeper themes and playing with controversial topics.  But it does feel like Iron Fist is going through the motions a bit, instead of bringing something fresh and new to the Netflix superhero genre.

While the “CW-verse” and M.E.U. represent multi-show worlds with crossover potential and inter-story referentiality, Fox has a couple of stand alone properties that are worth a mention in the discussion of superhero T.V. shows.  The first is Gotham, the “what happened in Gotham before Bruce Wayne became Batman" show that wavers between melodramatic, uncertain, and occasional brilliance.  I have found that Gotham is a show better binged than watched on a week by week basis.  While I am watching the show I invest in the characters and carefully track the intricate plot-lines.  The villains of the show (as is often the case with Batman properties) are a particularly fascinating collection.  While they are each clearly psychotic, there is such a delightful variety of psychosis that it keeps the show constantly dynamic and changing.  One episode the heroes are dealing with a group of thieves whose use of a red hood makes them feel invincible, the next with a genius intellect trying to frame a cop for murder, the next is a crime lord struggling to maintain his hold over the city’s various mob families.  Each criminal’s psychosis is drawing them further toward a comic book absurdity that contrasts beautifully with the dark, grim reality of the struggling and corrupt Gotham P.D. and the solidity of the show’s heroes.  The problem with Gotham is that it is not particularly memorable once you stop watching.  While you are watching, it is impossible to look away, but once the collection of shows you have saved to watch is finished, it is very easy to move on and lose interest.  This is not a show that makes me want to come back a week later and see what is going to happen.  This is mostly a result of the convoluted plots and melodramatic (yet slightly boring) main character.  Gotham keeps a lot of plates spinning at the same time; it is a police procedural with the episodic dead body to send detectives Gordon and Bullock into the chase, but it is also an ongoing mystery/ conspiracy story following who killed/had Bruce Wayne’s parents killed, while also being an origin story for the great villains and heroes of the Batman mythos.  Each of these threads creates a complex tapestry of events that is fine for binge watching (where you remember from 10 minutes ago that this person is involved with this murder or that conspiracy), but make it complicated when you step away from the show for any length of time to keep characters and events straight.  Another difficulty is that the main characters are a bit boring, and as a prequel, we know certain facts about them from the outset.  There is never any real sense of danger for Jim or Harvey, as any Batman fan knows that they both make it to the Bat era of Gotham.  We know Jim survives, we know he gets married (although not necessarily to whom in the show), and that he has kids.  We know Bruce, Alfred, and Selina all survive the perils in which they are placed because they are all key components of the Batman story.  While it is interesting to see them beginning to develop into the characters we know they will become, it does not provide the elevated dramatic tension necessary to bring viewers back week after week.

The newest addition to the ever growing collection of superhero T.V. shows, and one of the most interesting, has been Legion.  Legion is an X-Men spinoff that follows David Haller, an extraordinarily powerful mutant with telepathy, telekinesis, and a large number of other powers that basically give him the ability to alter reality.  The problem is that David is also psychologically unstable… or is he?  This show balances on the blurry edge between the superhero and horror genres, as audience and character are forced constantly to re-evaluate what is real and what is not; if David is really crazy, or if his “psychosis” is simply his powers manifesting, or if there is a nefarious force trying to make people (and David) think he is crazy?  The show starts with a complete sense of displacement as the audience picks up about half way through the chronology of the episodes.  This displacement echoes the character’s uncertainty about what is going on as they try to sift through David’s memories and reconstruct his past to reveal his powers and uncover his secrets.  David’s memories are as uncertain as his sanity, however, and the heroes soon begin to doubt their own perceptions has his power to alter reality becomes evident.  Legion is the most intellectual of the superhero shows currently running.  It uses horror elements to create the sense of unease and uncertainty in the audience that the characters are feeling, while also using a wide variety of film techniques to foreshadow major events and leave hints about the “truth” of what is happening while simultaneously  concealing enough to keep the audience guessing through the season finale.  Each revelation only creates more questions, each victory only opens the world to new dangers, and each new character complicates the reality/unreality of the others.  Legion is similar to Gotham in that it juggles a large number of characters, complicated plot-lines, and themes of madness and reality, but becomes the superior show through its stellar use of visual cues and avant guard story-telling details that support or undercut each of the themes.  Legion demonstrates the potential of the superhero genre for more “literary” story telling and “artistic” expression.  While I miss some of the levity more typical of the superhero genre, Legion does an excellent job of building a superhero story that is interesting, compelling, and intellectually satisfying.  Legion is well worth watching, and I look forward to seeing what future season hold.

So there you have it; a (rather long) summary of the latest season of the superhero T.V. shows.  While there have been highlights and disappointments, for anyone who is a fan of superheroes, this year has been a delight.  Even the worst shows have had there fantastic elements, and the best have been truly wonderful.  If you like watching vigilantes in bright colors, super-powered beings punching bad guys, or psychotic villains with a flair for the dramatic, all of these shows will satisfy, and all are worth the time to catch up.

Well, back to reality.

What's In a Trailer?

Dear Readers,

Let’s talk superheroes.  With new trailers dropping every week for this year’s superhero blockbusters and with the most recent T.V. seasons racing toward their close, spring is a fantastic time to be a superhero fan-girl.  So this is going to be a quick anticipatory overview of upcoming films based on the trailers with a rants and raves style look at the most recent seasons in the superhero television universes to come later this month.

So 2017 started out with a hit with The Lego Batman Movie.  This fun and clever film lovingly lambasted everyone’s favorite genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist superhero (honestly… Tony Stark doesn’t hold a candle to the Dark Knight).  For more on Lego Batman, see my previous post (link).  But basically, this quirky “kid’s” movie kick 2017 off with a bang.

Next on the superhero line up is Logan.  Honestly, I am not a big fan of the X-Men universe in general, and of Wolverine movies more particularly.  So while a lot of my friends were rejoicing over the prospect of a film that does a variation on the “Old Man Logan” story-line, I was underwhelmed.  The trailer did nothing to allay my ennui.  This film looks like another mopey, gratuitously violent flick that takes itself too seriously and forgets the joy in absurdity that comes with “superhero-dom.”  This has been a consistent problem with the “Wolverine” movies specifically; while the character is fascinating, and works well in a team like the X-Men, placing him as the central focus in a film has been problematic.  While I will definitely watch Logan when it comes out on DVD, between the trailer and past problems with Wolverine stand alone movies, I don’t see this as a “must see in theaters.”

Coming at the beginning of May, we have Guardians of the Galaxy 2.  With the surprise success of the first film, it is no shock that Marvel slated this film for prime release position at the very beginning of their summer movie season in a position previously held by both Captain America and Iron Man.  There has been a lot to love in the teasers and trailers for this film.  I am particularly anticipating seeing how Baby Groot plays as a character… Groot was the emotional heart of the first film, and I look forward to seeing how a more juvenile version of the character will affect the dynamic within the team, particularly with Rocket.  The teaser we had of Rocket telling Groot not to push the button that will blow everyone up was (I hope) an excellent preview of what that relationship will look like in the film.  I am also really interested to see the development of the character of Drax.  While more people are focusing on Star Lord in the trailers, in anticipation of him meeting his father, I have been fascinated by a shift in the character of Drax,  In the previous film, Drax was very much the “straight man” of the comedic group… he did not understand humor very well, and he was obsessed with obtaining vengance for his family.  In the recent trailers, however, we have been getting a much lighter version of the character, in which he is constantly laughing, and joking at the expense of his teammates.  This is a very different direction, and I look forward to seeing it play out in this new film.  Overall, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 looks like a solid sequel, and is one of my top anticipated films of 2017.

In June the D.C. cinematic universe gets its first shot at 2017 glory with Wonder Woman.  I am a bit on the fence about this movie.  So far, the D.C. cinematic universe has been plagued with poor writing, dark cinematography, and a fundamental misunderstanding of certain characters that has made their two most recent endeavors less than successful (more on this in my Batman vs. Superman review, link).  D.C. has been teasing this movie for over a year now, and the trailers have been good, but unexceptional.  That being said, Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman was one of the few bright spots in BvS, and I am very much looking forward to seeing how she does in the spotlight.  If the film is able to take those attributes; the badass, no nonsense approach to a fight, the disdainful humor toward the overbearing men around her, and combine it with the innocence and optimism we have glimpsed in the trailers, then I believe that Wonder Woman could be a win for D.C.  I sincerely hope this movie does pull through for D.C. because there are a number of projects they have scheduled down the line that I am really looking forward to that are dependent on the success of this cinematic universe.  A final word on Wonder Woman before I move on; as a woman, a feminist, and a critic, I also hope that this movie is better than both its predecessors and the trailer make it out to be.  As the first major superhero movie with a female lead we have had in a very long time, a lot is riding on its success.  There is a danger that, if Wonder Woman fails that other projects, both in D.C. and in Marvel that highlight powerful female characters will be seen as too risky and will be pushed back or canceled.  I am not saying that I want Wonder Woman to do well simply because it has a female lead (that’s just as sexist), but I am hoping that this “first” film will be successful so that it does not close the door for other heroines.

July takes us back to Marvel for the premier of Spider-man: Homecoming.  A lot of people are anticipating this movie, and I can see why.  We glimpsed the potential of Tom Holland’s web slinger in Captain America: Civil War, where his humor, innocence, and enthusiasm where a delight for the entire audience (more on Civil War here).  The trailers for this movie have also been very well received; highlighting the relationship between Tony Stark and Peter Parker and focusing on Spidey’s struggle to balance being a superhero (particularly with a mentor like Iron Man) with the everyday difficulties of being a teenager in high-school.  While I am excited for this movie, I do have a few concerns.  First, over the last fifteen years we have had 5 films featuring Spiderman, 2 different actors, and while Holland was great in Civil War, I wonder whether we actually need another stand alone Spiderman movie right now.  Power, responsibility, and being a struggling high-schooler are all things we have seen before, five times in the last decade or so.  I would much rather have seen Marvel take the same sort of track with Spiderman that they have taken with the Hulk, including him as a part of other story-lines without committing to a standalone film.  That criticism aside, my other concern with Homecoming is more technical.  The trailers have been a bit too specific for me.  They seem to be laid out in a chronological order, and they detail the entire plot of the film from beginning to end.  This is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes anticipation is greater when you know how a story will unfold than if you are surprised, but it is nice not to be mentally checking boxes “yep, now we are at that part in the trailer, yep, knew that thing was going to happen” while you are watching a movie.  But this is a really minor criticism, and I have a great deal of confidence in Marvel as a studio and in their ability to make a thoroughly enjoyable and exciting superhero movie.  I will certainly see this movie in theaters, and I look forward to doing an extensive review when I have actually seen the final product.

There is a bit of a lull until November, where we have the first big D.C./Marvel head to head.  On November 3rd is the release of Thor: Ragnarok.  The recent trailer made it clear that director Taika Waititi is taking the film in a more humorous and satirical direction than the previous Thor movies (my review here).  I thoroughly enjoyed the preview for this film, and personally, it is my most anticipated superhero movie of 2017.  I like the fact that it is less Earth-bound than the other Thor movies, and that it seems to be dealing with some wider threats.  I love the satirical approach to the subject we have seen in both the trailers and the end credits teaser.  I also like the interweaving of other heroes and story-lines; the end credits scene on Dr. Strange (review link) promises the appearance of that hero at some point in Ragnarok, while the trailer plays heavily on the inclusion of the Hulk and a potential telling of a “Planet Hulk” story arc, which would be totally awesome!  All in all, Thor: Ragnarok looks to be one of the highlights of superhero 2017, and is a “must see” in my opinion.

A mere 10 days later, we have the premiere of Justice League.  As with Wonder Woman, I have my reservations about this film, but I also have a great deal of hope.  I love the cast for this movie: Ben Affleck’s Batman was one of the best parts of Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, despite the poor writing and stupid plot twist that effectively ruined the climax of that film.  Gal Gadot is returning in a leading role as Wonder Woman, and, again, based on her BvS performance, could be a highlight for the film.  We also have the highly anticipated debut of Ezra Miller’s Flash and Jason Mamoa’s Aquaman.  I am especially looking forward to seeing Mamoa bring a new grit and intensity to Aquaman, whose prior incarnations have always been slightly ridiculous.  This is an extraordinarily badass character that is finally getting a chance to come into his own.  Miller is also a fantastic actor, and has already been a great source of levity and delight in the trailers for this film.  My concerns about this film are based on the issues with script, direction, and tone that we have seen in all three of the previous D.C. cinematic universe entries.  Zach Snyder demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of Superman in both Man of Steel (review here), and BvS that I worry will carry over into Justice League.  While it makes sense to have Batman be dark and brooding, Superman has to stand above that to some extent, and he has not in Snyder's last two renditions of the character.  Similarly, while the Flash can (and should) have some contemplative and heartfelt moments, one of the defining features of the character is that he is a force of light for heroes who are constantly fighting in the darkness.  While I like that they film looks to focus on Barry’s relationship with his (wrongfully imprisoned) father, I hope that this is not the defining portrayal of his character.  I also am worried about the tone of this film.  It looks to be following the previous Snyder installations by working in a darker color pallete and emphasizing the “grittiness” of the world.  Again, while this works for some characters (Batman and potentially Aquaman), it might present a problem for some of the lighter characters like Superman, the Flash, Wonder Woman, and Cyborg.  Speaking of Cyborg, that is another spot of trepidation for this Justice League film.  Not only is he traditionally a lighter character, which could be problematic within this D.C. universe, but his portrayal in the trailers is unsettling for a number of viewers.  The CGI looks unfinished at best, and if the Cyborg we see in the trailer is what we will get in the film there is reason for concern.  The cybernetic suit looks disjointed and unreal, and if there are no improvements before November, could become a difficult aspect of the film in removing the audience’s suspension of disbelief.  Ultimately, I will be seeing this film with a certain amount of trepidation based on the previous issues in this cinematic universe, however, I will also go with a great deal of hope based on the fantastic casting, and potentially lighter tone promised by the trailer.

So there you have it… the 2017 superhero movie line up.  If the films live up to the promise of their trailers than superhero nerds will have a fantastic year (however, we all know it is possible to make an awesome trailer for an awful movie).  I look forward to reviewing each of these films as I see them, and to examining in more detail the transition from comic to cartoon to live action film that defines any superhero movie.  For more on the wider superhero universes, please come back later this month to check out my reviews on the most recent seasons of from “the Arrowverse,” along with a look at “Gotham,” Agents of Shield,” and “Legion.”  Finally, there is a definite possibility that I missed a movie or two on my list because it want on one of the major franchise (D.C./Marvel/X-Men) lists.  Please feel free to comment on what I might have missed so I can check out those trailers and add reviews down the line.

Well, back to reality.