MAN OF STEEL -- Does Zack Snyder Get It?

If the most recent trailer for the new Superman film MAN OF STEEL is any indication, the answer is a resounding YES!

I have long argued that Superman is my favorite character because he is the most complex of all superheroes.  He isn't merely the first, he is the most interesting.  He has layers and layers.

To often authors and illustrators focus on what Superman can "do" and not "why" he does it or "what" he needs.  Superman is the living embodiment of the question Aristotle poses his Politics.  In Book One of THE POLITICS, Aristotle writes about man and society: "But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends."

Like all men, Kal-El has the instinct to live within society.  He desires to be a part of humanity.  It is why he has a secret identity at all.  Superman has no need for a secret identity except as a way to connect himself with "The City."  Unlike Spider-Man and Batman, Superman wears no mask in his heroic identity.  He lets the world see him as he is.  But he knows that his superheroic identity can not be a part of society.  Superman is godlike and disconnected.  He would be naturally rejected by the society.  Not out of spite or fear, though some would feel that way, but out of awe.  Yet Kal-El isn't sufficient in himself.  Yes, he can survive the vacuum of space without protection.  He can survive a nuclear explosion and lift mountains, yet he is alone.  He is the "Last Son of Krypton."  He needs society and the only way he can have that is through the creation of the adult Clark Kent.

Without Clark Kent and the merging with society that persona gives Kal-El, he might well become a beast.  The tragedy is that through the creation and maintaining of Clark Kent as a persona, Superman puts those he loves at greater risk.  Spider-Man's adoption of a secret identity is done to protect Aunt May, and with some exception it does exactly that.  Superman's secret identity puts Lois, Lana, Jimmy, and Ma and Pa Kent at greater risk than otherwise.  Since Superman is a public figure, he could spend all his time in the Fortress of Solitude with no private life.  Villains would attack the Fortress and only attack civilians in typically villainous ways.  By having roots in society Kal-El puts those people at risk of being targeted as individuals due to their connection with him.  Yet he needs them to become fulfilled...to be a part of law and justice...to work with intelligence and virtue.

He is a truly tragic figure, and I have always been moved when writers are able to capture that small part of him.  Sadly, too few capture that conflict.  They are too often trapped by looking only at Superman as mythic figure and not as someone with the social instinct.

The new preview shows a Clark that yearns for that connection, but whose powers not only separate him from society but cause him pain.  Imagine Clark -- the child -- who can hear all the sounds of the world at once pounding into his eardrums.  Every conversation, every tear, every rain drop.  How alone he must feel.  The voice over with Ma Kent reflecting this in the trailer is magnificent.

Jackie Chan's ZODIAC --- Okay, Now I'm Interested

Seeing Jackie Chan in the teaser trailer for ZODIAC, I was really worried.  The luge body suit stunts were impressive, but they were also stiffer and less fluid than a typical Jackie stunt.  I wondered how much of his natural grace had been worn down by the various exertions he has put his body through during his career.

After seeing the extended trailer I still may hope that Jackie is able to enjoy a long and well deserved retirement, but I am no longer worried about him going out with a fizzle.

Enter Colonel Philip Green or... Gary Mitchell? -- STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS

I'm beginning to wonder if Cumberbatch's character in the upcoming STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS is either Colonel Philip Green or Gary Mitchell. There has been some talk about how the villain cannot be Gary Mitchell of late, even though the initial leak was that it was Mitchell.

Watching the teaser trailer, I'm torn between whether it is Green or Mitchell and leaning heavily toward Mitchell.  It looks like the crew explores a new planet with strange plants, there is a blond character very reminiscent of Sally Kellerman's character Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, and Cumberbatch does some pretty superhuman feats in the clips below. 

Oh, and you see him wearing a Star Fleet uniform.

If it is Mitchell, I'll be geeking out pretty hard as Where No Man Has Gone Before is possibly my favorite Star Trek episode.

Knights of Pen & Paper: Good Idea, but...

As a member of Generation X, I am a fan of "meta" media that is well done.  The initial trailer for the Behold Studios game "Knights of Pen & Paper" makes the game look like it could have been one of those beautiful meta moments.  It looks like a combination of Phoenix Wright with old school "Dragon Warrior," and that would be a beautiful thing indeed.

Reading through the reviews on iTunes, and looking at the in app purchase price schedule, it becomes quickly apparent that this is a game that hopes to have its profits driven by micro-transactions rather than by raw sales.  This is really too bad, as I think that this game might have some traction as a pure single transaction game with expansion purchases to buy updates similar to Ravenmark.

Alas, it seems that was not meant to be. I would have easily paid $7 to $10 for an excellent meta-rpg, but a micro transaction "buy gold" game?  Not so much.

Donnie Yen's Dragon (aka Wu Xia): Watch It

Donnie Yen's latest martial arts film was recently released in the US under the relatively uninformative title DRAGON, a title that brings to my mind thoughts of Bruce Lee and his many classic kung fu films.  It is also a title that does a disservice to the film.  As awe inspiring as Bruce Lee was as a performer, using any of Lee's major works as a reference point is completely off base as the vast majority of Lee's films were of a different film genre than DRAGON.

DRAGON follows in the wuxia tradition in which martial artists live in the world of jiang hu and are inexorably trapped within an epically tragic tale, often a romantic tale.  Think CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and you are on the right track.  But DRAGON, directed by Peter Ho-Sun Chan, brings in elements of American Film Noir to the traditional tragic fantasy elements of a typical wuxia film.    DRAGON begins as a murder mystery of a kind, a murder mystery that reveals that Liu Jin-xi (Donnie Yen) is more than the humble paper maker he appears to be.  It is a mystery that ends in proper wuxia tragedy.  It is a heartfelt film with fine emotional beats, even if the martial arts themselves don't quite live up to the remarkable high standards Yen has set of late.  This isn't to say the film isn't beautiful, it is, rather that this isn't a rapid paced actioner.  This is a film of investigations, fear of the loss of a mundane life, and tragedy.  It has some echoes of the Shaw Brothers classic ONE ARMED SWORDSMAN, but is entirely its own creation.

Given the narrative tensions of the film, I wouldn't have marketed the film under the title DRAGON.  I would have based the title on the original title Wu Xia, a term that literally means "martial hero."  Given the connotations of honor in the phrase, I would have called the film AN HONORABLE MAN.  The title would then echo the tensions in the movie and provided context for potential viewers.  Is Liu Jin-xi an honorable man?  Has he always been an honorable man?  Will he leave the tale an honorable man?  These are the questions the audience faces as they watch the film.  They are questions worth asking and the investigations of Takeshi Kaneshiro's character answer only one of these questions.  The answer to the others are revealed through the subtleties of Donnie Yen's performance.

Disney + Marvel + Lucasfilm = ???

Yesterday it was announced that Disney would be buying Lucasfilm and that they would begin production on Episode 7 of the STAR WARS franchise.  The interwebonetosphere was abuzz with Gen-Xers in awe of how quickly Disney, under Bob Iger has moved to collect a good percentage of their childhood loves under one corporate banner.  Disney now owns the Marvel catalog of Super Heroes, the Star Wars Franchise, Indiana Jones, in addition to their own creations.  It's quite an array of IP.

My Geekerati co-host Shawna Benson mentioned how anyone who has been to Disneyland and walked through the Star Tours store could plainly see this was a natural move for Disney corporation.  Think of how many toy aisles will be filled with Disney owned action figures... Star Wars, Marvel, Princesses, Princes, Beauties, Beasts, Jake, Tinkerbell.  Good grief!

All of this analysis misses one key point, the real reason that Disney purchased Lucasfilm.  Lost in the annals of film, there is a highly underrated cinematic masterpiece that was produced by Lucasfilm in the 80s.  It has largely been forgotten.  Lucas himself attempted to Jedi mindtrick the entire human race to forget of its existence. 

No, I'm not talking about the STAR WARS HOLIDAY SPECIAL.  I'm referring to a Marvel property.

With the acquisition of both Marvel and Lucasfilms, Bob Iger has enabled Disney to overcome the legal morass preventing an updating of the greatest film of all time...

HOWARD THE DUCK!

I can see it now.  Howard the Duck taking over Toon Town.  A Howard the Duck inserted into the Indiana Jones ride.  A Howard the Duck journey on Star Tours.  A retheming of Splash Mountain to Duck Mountain.  Howard the Duck being made a canonical member of the Duck Tales verse.

You heard it here first.

[The above is not serious, it is a joke.  No one believes that HtD was a good movie.]

A Halloween Toast!

Because it's so difficult to get young children to eat toast and cheese, it being such an unnatural and un-kid-friendly snack...

Okay, I just like Halloween, and holidays, and any time I can holiday up a staple like toast, I'm gonna do it.  This food "craft" if you will, is fast, super easy, and turns out pretty well with any level of creative skill.  You'll need bread, a toaster oven, and orange cheese that can melt (the orange cheese that turns to industrial plastic liner when heated -- and you know what I mean, because we've all had it, and some of us like it -- will not do).

Arrange your bread.  Before applying cheese, round it by trimming the corners with a small knife.  Then cut eyes and a nose with the same knife.  For the mouth, the easiest thing to do is cut the large shape of the mouth, then cut and add teeth after (remember, this is going to melt together, so it will look like one big pumpkin jack-o-lantern face as long as the edges overlap or meet).  Arrange your cheesy "face" on the bread and pop it in the toaster oven.

The result is yummy, cheesy fun.  It's a great way to add a little kid-fun and holiday cheer to your average soup or munchy snack.  Pictured here is a whole wheat bread and mild cheddar cheese.  A dark rye or pumpernickel will offer more contrast and really make that pumpkin grin stand out!  Our preschoolers are always smiles to find faces staring back at them from their plates.  I'm not sure if that's funny or frightening, but since either is welcome at Halloween, bon appetite!