WHAT IF... Captain America was African American!?

If there's one topic that keeps popping up in terms of superhero movies lately, it's the idea of 'racebent', 'colourblind', or whatever other term you wish to label it with casting. This became something of a minor issue for the original Thor movie, when Heimdall, a character who traditionally looked something like this...

Wound up looking more like this...

And overnight became the number one way of telling who was a petty racist in the world of comic books and the movies that surround them. 

Of course, when the movie came out and the rest of the world saw what anybody who'd seen Idris Elba in anything did with the character, any murmur of the character being the wrong colour was soon forgotten (or at least sidelined to the point where the only rebut you'll ever need is a clip of Elba as Heimdall doing anything on screen) and it's also not the first, or last, time something like this has happened. Say what you like about Daredevil, but Michael Clarke Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin may well be the best representation that character we can hope for. Then of course there was Laurence Fishburne as Perry White in Man of Steel, an actor who sadly wasn't given the time to show us what he could do with that character, and the more high profile casting of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Yes, I know it's a direct lift from the Ultimates universe, but still the point still stands. All these actors took on characters that are traditionally seen as white, and not only did the world not come to a horrific end, but the vast majority of them were nothing short of superb. 

Now the debate rides again, coming about as a more high profile white character, the Human Torch, has been cast as black actor Michael B. Jordan. Now I have to admit, I don't really have a horse in this race. The only thing I've seen with Jordan in is Chronicle and that was a movie with problems far beyond it's acting talent. Of course, the new Fantastic Four movie also has problems of it's own beyond the race changing of a single character that worry me, but I've been catching little pieces of the debate from time to time and when I heard that John Byrne had chimed in? Morbid curiosity got the better of me and I decided to go have a look. I refuse to link to that man's forum, but here's a Bleeding Cool link that about covers it. 

Now I have to admit, I went into reading this expecting to roll my eyes at best, or want to punch my monitor at worst, but despite missing the point in places, providing a genuinely awful example of this kind of casting in other kinds of movies and eventually devolving into the worst excesses of comic book fan entitlement that he blames the public representation of fans for in an earlier paragraph there are points I actually agree with him on, and I think it's one of the most sane and reasonable things I've read from the man on this kind of issue. I mean, he didn't brand a whole gender of a single race hookers just for the colour of their hair this time, so it's progress right? I suppose if I really wanted to take him to task, I'd argue that Stan Lee is big enough and old enough to speak up for himself and a man who writes a story about Big Barda being brainwashed into making hardcore pornography is the very last person who should be lecturing others on respecting Jack Kirby's characters. So wheeling out the whole 'Spirit of what Lee and Kirby intended' is just... Bollocks, quite frankly. But I digress. 

The two things I really took away from all this is the complete agreement that Marvel and DC should be doing more to promote their minority characters. Cripes, doing more to promote their female characters would be wonderful. However I don't think giving Nick Fury an obscure, coloured SHIELD agent as a sidekick is really as powerful a step forward as having one of the top black actors of our time playing the character who is most associated with counter-intelligence in the Marvel universe. Yet I do feel like Marvel in particular could be doing so much more with the minority characters they've already introduced. While War Machine and Falcon are unlikely to be able to support their own movies (yet!) I do have to ask, why wasn't War Machine in Avengers? Pepper Potts was, and she's not even Tony's superheroic partner! Or more importantly, why is there seemingly no sign of Falcon in Avengers 2? He was still with Steve at the end of the movie, surely if there's anyone Rodgers would want to have his back it would be the man who helped him save SHIELD from itself simply because it was the right thing to do. 

The other thing Byrne's comments left me pondering was exactly what makes race important to a character, and how interchangeable it is. Hollywood is pretty ruthless with changing nationalities, or casting actors of one nationality to play a character of another, is this really any different? To me, the answer seems to be 'it depends'. Does it really matter what colour Johnny Storm's skin is? Not really, although it would be nice if they cast Sue as the same race. Yes I know even biological siblings can have different skin colour, but to be honest I'd rather they just cast them both black or both white than having to waste movie time explaining why they are as they are. The important part of Storm's character comes from his firebrand, fun loving personality and the powerful bond he shares with his family - And that's something that transcends skin colour. Heck, somebody in the comments on that article mentioned Reed Richards being played by Denzel Washington and I have to admit... I would be all over that. 

But as I climbed down the rabbit hole, there were some characters where a change of skin tone would fundamentally change them at the core. This became most apparent with time locked characters. Technically as leader of the Howling Commandos, this should have been Fury. But naturally you can't have him stealing Cap's shtick on screen, and I think this, more than his race accounts for a lot of the problems with the character Byrne brought up. He doesn't have his history, his dyed in the wool pedigree like he does in the comics - It simply doesn't work here. So really, we know very little about him other than the fact he lurks around the Helicarrier and gives orders. It's something I'd love to see them expand on, and I'm very glad he finally got some great focus in The Winter Soldier.

Speaking of Cap though, how different would that movie have been at it's very core had they cast a black actor as Steve Rodgers? How many social issues would they have had to tackle head on or look silly for straight up ignoring? His back story could almost be untouched, just take on a more poignant element for the fact that not only are big, dumb jocks getting him down for being too weedy to do well... Most anything really, but society itself is telling him he's a second class citizen. So this runty little guy with no prospects whatsoever decides the only way he can make anything of himself is by joining the army. Literally, the only way.

Of course, this is where the movie could perhaps borrow a lot of elements from the backstory of Isaiah Bradley, an African American who was part of a test program to recreate the super soldier program during World War II. Now you might ask why not just make a movie about Isaiah Bradley, then? Because I think there's something inherently more interesting about the government choosing to test their maiden voyage with this project on minorities, and then rolling it out to get their golden haired, blue eyed, perfect Aryans and other assorted pretty white boys once they knew it was safe. The problem with Isaiah Bradley is he's never going to have the same impact as Captain America, because they already have their perfect product. If that initial experiment that Thorin Oakenshield was so discourteous to disrupt with explosions had only produced a single, solitary super soldier - And he was a person of colour? Well, where does the American government go from there?

Can they still use him as a propaganda piece like they did with Rodgers in the movie? Or do they just package him off on secret, behind enemy lines mission and be content they have a pretty powerful weapon in the war - Just one they'd rather not everybody see! You also have to wonder what Cap himself would do. Would he just roll with whatever his military superiors told him to do, or choose to use his new found power and influence to fix some things at home as well as abroad? There's a great sentiment in the first Captain America movie, where after a life of being pushed around and watching other people be pushed around, Steve Rodgers has dedicated the rest of his days to fighting bullies big and small and sees very little difference between Red Skull and his cronies and the big, dumb guys who made his own life hell other than the scale on which they work. What happens when the people who made your life hell have the law on their side in some circumstances? Hrm. 

Now, I just want to be clear I'm not advocating that this movie should be made. I personally find the idea fascinating, and if pulled off well it would definitely be a thought provoking and potentially eye opening piece. But for somebody who's favourite superhero movie so far is, indeed, Captain America the first, it wouldn't really make for a good punchy, dynamic comic book action movie. Plus I'm a big fan of keeping characters true to their source material on a basic level, I like all the core elements and broad brush strokes to be there to make the character recognisable, while film makers can go wild on the less important things. I just think that when it comes to race? If changing it is a big deal or not really does depend on the extent it effects the character. 

Nobody is going to care if Aquaman isn't white. Heck, with the casting of native Hawaiian Jason Momoa as the king of Atlantis I think we're going to confirm that for a fact very soon indeed. He's Atlantean, he could technically be any colour he liked. But when you start messing with characters who have very strong connections to a certain culture, time period or geographical area? Then things start getting tricky, as you risk changing that character beyond recognition. The most obvious examples are the minority characters that already exist to try to bring some diversity to the titles, but if we want to step back to the Fantastic Four, think about Doctor Doom. He's the ruler of a small, Eastern European country through hereditary ties, could he really be anything else than what he is and still have it believable? 

At the end of the day though, it's all about one thing - Casting the best man or woman for the job at any given time, and if comic book movies can keep that up? Like they did with Sam Jackson, Michael C. Duncan and Idris Elba? Yeah, I can be a happy bunny and not get too pent up about this issue. Of course, if they don't, I choose less to think of it as an example of 'forced token casting' ruining our movies, and more just flat out bad casting period. I hope whatever happens with the new Fantastic Four movie, Michael B. Jordan is able to prove he's anything but that. 

Super Heroes on the Small Screen (Or how comics are invading your TV!)

Over the past decade superhero movies have become so prominent that they're pretty much synonymous with the Hollywood blockbuster. Just this year we've had Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men and later Guardians of the Galaxy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Sin City shall be upon us and those are just the big guns, leaving aside more stealthy adaptations most people probably assume aren't drawn from comic books such as I, Frankenstien and ones with tenuous links to their original works like 300: Rise of an Empire. This doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, with Marvel claiming they have plans well into the next decade and Warner Bros/DC finally pulling their finger out of whatever orifice they've had it in these past few years and deciding they need to make a concentrated effort to catch up. I personally can't say I approve of the method they're going by to catch up, but I guess it's nice to finally seem them get over the self-inflicted wound that was Green Lantern and do something.

Looking at the television schedules lately, it looks like the comic book adaptation isn't happy with it's lot as the king of cinema and it's coming for the smaller screen. We've already seen this in dribs and drabs, with The Walking Dead continuing to shuffle on, the wildly entertaining Arrow bursting into its second series with a gusto and Agents of SHIELD - A much maligned show that I'll happily defend to the death, coming to an initial close and all set up for a second series as well. True it had a slow start, and the initial few episodes suffered from characters who carried all the traditional Whedon stereotypes and very little of the associated charm, but over time it's built itself into a thrilling mammoth of a series, and I hope they can carry that momentum forward into their much deserved second outing.

TV series based on comic books are often mooted, but like so many movies of the same ilk (anyone remember the proposed Magneto or Silver Surfer spin-offs? The Flash movie that was rolling around in development hell with Wonder Woman post DC crawling into a hole when anything without a bat in it wasn't working out for them?) they often fall flat on their face. Despite their best efforts, Wonder Woman will have to remain Lynda Carter on the small screen for awhile longer and the often talked about Fables adaptation (canalised as it was into Once Upon A Time) seems to constantly wind up off and on the table as the years roll by. But something extraordinary happened these past few weeks. We got trailers. A whole host of trailers.

I already covered Gotham in a previous blog, but in the same rough time span we saw a glimpse of what was to come for two other DC properties that are coming soon. These are The Flash, based on DC's première scarlet speedster, and Constantine, the smarmy, no nonsense demon hunter who you wouldn't want to trust with your daughter. Or anyone else. Possibly not even your worst enemy. I have to admit, I'm very excited for both of these, but let's take a look!

Well... I have to admit I have mixed feelings on this one. The man they have playing Constantine, visually, is spot on. The only way you could get a better representation of the character is inventing a time machine and stealing 1980s circa Sting. There was also a moment in the trailer that made me jump out of my skin, immediately followed by a 'Feck me that's gross!' which is exactly what you want from something relating to Hellblazer. However. However. I can't help but get a nagging feeling about this. Maybe it's how the trailer is cut, but this does have the whiff of... Well, let's not beat around the bush, there are parts of it that reminded me of Charmed and other rather dubious 90s shows that featured heavily signposted plots and relationships and passable acting from anyone who didn't have a major role. That scene with the mum talking to her daughter is a prime example, and made me cringe a little. But the information landfill that was the conversation with the angel he had was pretty bad too.

I also can't seem to get used to Constantine himself. Everytime I've seen him he's either been stand-offish or extremely sarcy and enigmatic, yet here there's something of the cheerful jokester and emotional guardian to him. Again, this is snippets and not a whole representation, and it's true that even though he's terrible - Constantine does strive to be a good person. The inherent tragedy of the character is that for as much good as he tries to do, more people around and close to him seem to suffer. That'll take anyone off the rails, and maybe this version of the character just hasn't suffered enough yet. But I think it'll still take me awhile to get used to him.

I was also going to complain about the accent. I'm not sure where the accent comes from, and can only assume it's Matt Ryan's own, but it's... Very Welsh. With possibly the slightest hint of Irish (making him all the more jaunty!). However, considering Constantine is supposed to be a scouser, it could've been far, far worse I suppose. C-C-Constantine Vision! Demonic runes to me, demonic runes to you, and other jokes that will be lost on our international friends. I'm sorry guys. It happens sometimes.

That being said, the idea of starting the character out in an asylum is pretty inspired (and the chaos that goes on there looks fantastically fun!) and some of the supernatural elements were pulled off well. But on the whole I think I'll be stepping into this one a little cautiously, not only because of everything listed above, but because compared to the other two trailers released recently - This looks to be the less polished of the lot, and I was really hoping for some fantastically visceral and creepy set pieces from this one.

That said, it could really surprise me, and hey! At least there's no Keanu Reeves in sight!

Now this is more like it! I have to admit, I've been looking forward to this one for awhile and from the glimpse above it doesn't look like it's going to disappoint. I instantly fell in love with Grant Gustin during his cameo on Arrow, and the team behind that show has won an awful lot of good will with me over the course of its run. Like Agents of SHIELD, Arrow got off to a rocky start but soon pulled itself out of the rut with compelling plots featuring the mysterious island and John Barrowman. Seriously, John Barrowman is a power player of this series, and I'm over the moon he's coming on full time for series 3.

The minds behind that series are some of the few over at Warner Brothers I trust to deliver me compelling, comic book action I actually enjoy and from the trailer above? It seems like they've got the foundation for something good. On the downside there seems to be a lot of elements from more current comic book lore creeping in, Geoff Johns' ridiculous grimdark origin story for Barry Allen, for example, which doesn't even fit the television version of the character from what we've seen of him.  But I did love the slight glimpse we got of Thawne! He looks fantastic. It also seems like we're going to get a set of Rogues who instead of relying on tricks and costumes and their own personal charm are going to gain actual powers from being mutated by roughly the same force as Barry himself.

I can't say this doesn't rub me the wrong way, mostly because if that's the connection they are going with then guys? Hey guys, Speed Force doesn't work that way! But I'm not despairing quite yet. Arrow's treatment of heroes and villains alike have been slightly off kilter to their comic counterparts, but the personalities and quirks always shine through in the end and it's wound up being the most faithful and exciting series for comic book fans lately. Deathstroke and Deadshot seem to come more and more alive and in line with their characters the more we see of them, for example, and even Count Vertigo as a deranged drug pusher worked in it's own way. Besides, having everything neatly tied together (much like Oliver's Island list) makes for better TV I suppose. Ultimately the important thing about the Rogues isn't going to be their powers or how they came about, it's going to be their personalities and if we ever see them band together in a dysfunctional family. That'll make or break them, and I urge the creators not to screw it up.

Other than that, I have to say I'm very impressed. From a technical point of view, it's certainly the trailer with the most eye candy. While Constantine barely looks polished in places, Flash looks slick from the outset and the special effects are beyond passable. Barry's movement, for example, just looks like it was torn right from the pages of the comics and is masterfully done while the super speed stunts look impressive in themselves, though I have to wonder how many bones Barry broke pulling off some of them.

The premise and performances seem solid as well. Barry being backed by STAR labs makes more sense than him jobbing it alone (Ollie can afford his hobby, a police scientist? Perhaps not!) and opens up a whole new element of the TV universe for them to explore. Hopefully this element doesn't get in the way of Barry's superhero antics and personal life, as if I'm honest that's what I really want to see, but it's an interesting addition none the less. Weather Wizard's power set seems spot on too, even if there's little in the trailer to distinguish him from ever other cackling super villain on Earth, and from the brief glimpse we got of her the lady they cast as Iris West seems perfectly charming in her own right as well. So we'll hopefully be spared the initial teething pains of Ollie's family being the most grating thing in the world in the early episodes of Arrow.

Of course, the show itself could be awful and the trailer only the very best, hand selected portions of the lot (it certainly had a better editor than Constantine's!) but I'm optimistic. The ultimate question, I suppose, is if it's going to turn out more flash than substance?

So there you have it. Walking Dead, Arrow, Agents of SHIELD, Gotham, Flash, Constantine and then of course the Netflix Marvel shows, the proposed Sandman television series and many others beyond that we'll either see... Or we won't. Comic books are coming for the small screen in a big way, and hopefully they'll wind up on par with the kind of movies we're being treated too now, and not the TV equivalents of Catwoman.

In Defence of Iron Man 3.

Now I've returned home and the release dates are no longer conspiring against me (released in the UK while I was in the US, not released in the US until I returned to the UK) I've finally seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier. My thoughts? It's a very strong entry into Marvel's line of superhero movies, only really let down by the poor writing of Black Widow and the even poorer acting ability of Scarlett Johansson. I already had a bias here, as I think I'm one of the few men on the planet who isn't dazzled by how attractive her body is, and I never really bought her initial performance as a former KGB agent all the way back in Iron Man 2. Seeing and reading how much effort Mickey Rouke put in for the same movie, learning Russian, visiting gulags, really throwing himself into the role - I always found how little work Johansson put in by comparison, for a much bigger role, to be insulting. As the movies have rolled on, it's become more and more apparent that she can't really emote for toffee and has very limited chemistry with anyone she's on screen with so despite liking the character of Black Widow in the comics, the idea of her appearing in the movies is an instant black mark for me. Although to be fair to her, I tried to imagine a better actress pulling off the dialogue and characterisation she was given in the new Cap movie, and really couldn't picture them doing much better. So given what she was working with, it's at least not all her fault this time? 

That being said, Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie were superb as the Winter Soldier and Falcon respectively, and it was fantastic to finally see Nick Fury step out of his role as enigmatic director a little and actually get some solid action scenes. The amount of villains they snuck under the radar and how they handled them were a nice surprise too, and overall I give the film a pretty big thumb up. I didn't enjoy it as much as Cap'n America the first, but then I thought that World War II aesthetic was a breath of fresh air for a superhero movie, and I'll always secretly long for more of that kind of thing and resent The Avengers a teeny, tiny bit for not allowing them to explore it. 

One thing I genuinely dislike about Winter Soldier though, is the reaction to it. Not that it's been at all negative, but one thing I've seen time and time again, especially from my friends across the pond, is statements along the lines of 'THAT is how you do a sequel Iron Man 3!'. Honestly? I don't get it. I really don't get it. 

Okay, that's a lie, I kind of get it, but only when it comes to the trigger sensitive issue of the Mandarin, and we'll get to him later, but I've always thought that Iron Man 3 was one of Marvel studio's triumphs, on par with or perhaps just nudging past the original Iron Man in quality. 

Iron Man 3 showed us a Tony Stark who had to overcome more than a man in a suit like his or some Russian dude with whips on his arms and an over-glorified cockatoo. In that movie, he has to finally come to terms with the myriad of personal problems that have manifested in past movies (especially in Iron Man 2) as well as face up to an enemy that has exploited those issues and left Stark with zero resources to fight back with. If there was one movie that really developed Stark's character and personality, and really forced him to grow as a character, it was this one. All that pomp and arrogance that led to the climatic 'I'm Iron Man!' scene in the first movie comes back to haunt him, and while that aspect of his personality is never truly going to go away, three did humble him just a little. 

Beyond that though, three allowed us to see a Tony Stark that was truly a genius in practical terms. We all know that he can create massive arc reactors that can power entire towers, program robot butlers to attend to his every need - Christ, without Richards or Hank Pym on the scene and Banner being more a geneticist, Stark is the lead 'Weird Scientist' of the Marvel cinematic universe. But in three we really got to see him put that mind to work and turn nothing into something. We got to see that the actual hero was more than just money and a suit, but the brains and courage behind it. Which led to some fantastic, Bondequse scenes of Stark working with smaller, McGuyvered together gadgets to get things done when his suit wasn't an option. 

But let's say you don't care about character development or story? Well, first of all, screw you sir/madam! You're the kind of person that keeps Michael Bay in business and that I cannot abide! I cannot abide!! But if you happen to like your action, Iron Man 3 has the kind of action set pieces that the first could only dream about. The rescue from the plane was exciting and intense, and say what you like about Aldritch Killian as a villain, the final battle with the dozens of automated Iron Man suits zipping around was rather wonderful. I know I cheered when I spotted the Hulkbuster like piece of armour, and I'm sure if I had a very patient and precise thumb on the pause button and a book of Iron Man armour types I could find quite a few from the comics and past movies tucked away in there. 

So, great characterisation of the main protagonist and great action, let's get down to the story, shall we? And this is where I can kind of understand where some have problems with this film. As a comic book fan, I tend to get very... Terse when film producers mess with characters I love. I feel that while change is a necessity when it comes to adaptation, if you don't keep the core spirit of the characters and world alive you may as well not bother doing the adaptation at all and work on an original project. There's an argument to be made that the core spirit of the Mandarin wasn't kept intact, however I'd counter that with the fact that it was never supposed to be the Mandarin in the first place. If you're upset about the bait and switch, that's fair enough, but to paraphrase the man himself - I never saw it coming, and was surprised to actually be caught off guard by a twist in a film. There's also the fact that most fans of the Iron Man comics I've spoke too tend to shrug this off and say that between them, Killian and Trevor make decent representations of the classic and ultimate universe Mandarin's. 

I don't know, I may be biased on this point because I thought Ben Kingsley's role as failing luvvie actor Trevor Slattery provided some of the most entertaining moments of the movie, and far surpassed his turn as the more serious, terrorist leader. I also saw it as an intriguing twist rather than a bait and switch. I found the plot they presented far more interesting than a potential 'Uh oh, the Ten Rings sound like trouble! Better spend the movie hunting them down and then triumphing over them!' if only because that's the plot of most every other superhero film ever. If the Mandarin is still a sticking point for you, though, well perhaps you should get around to picking up a copy of Thor 2: The Dark World as it has this little gem on it...

A one-shot that effectively answers the Mandarin question once and for all, and gives us the final fate of poor old Trevor Slattery. Some may call it a cop-out, or Marvel caving to pressure, and maybe it is, but hey! At least they did it in style.

Putting this aside, the one thing I loved about Iron Man 3 above all else was that it felt like an end to the trilogy. I was worried that with a new director coming on board, it would feel fundamentally different to the other films. But I need not have worried, as instead it felt like a fabulous capstone to the trilogy that tied the films together into one cohesive story but still left room for Stark to appear as part of the Avengers movies. I came out of the cinema thinking I'd be happy not to see another Iron Man film ever again, not because it was bad, more because it just felt like the character's story had come to a natural end and anything that came along afterwards would just feel tacked on. I can't remember having that feeling before, even in films designed to be trilogies, it just felt like the perfect way to tie off the whole thing. 

For me, the tone of Iron Man 3 felt perfect for an Iron Man movie, the characterisation was excellent (not just of Stark himself, but of Pepper, Rhodey, Trevor, Killian, even the kid they paired him up with managed to come off feeling like a regular kid, not a creep-under-your-skin-annoying movie savant kid), the acting was of the high quality I'd come to expect from these movies, the action scenes were fantastic and the story really brought the whole thing to a close in a grand style. It's for these reasons, and I'm sure a few others if I really scratched around in my brain, that I just can't understand why Iron Man 3 is the Marvel sequel that everyone seems to run down in comparison to the others. Personally, I take the opinion that it's one of the best sequels that Marvel has released so far and exactly what I was looking for in an Iron Man film. 

Does it have the same tone and focus as films featuring other characters in the same universe? No. But then again, none of them do when compared to each other. That's the whole point of The Avengers and why it seemed so impossible to accomplish on film for so many years. Disparate heroes, from different times and dimensions, who come from very different origins and lend themselves, individually, to very different kinds of stories coming together onto one team to fight for freedom and justice. And even though they're very different movies, Iron Man 3 was exactly what I was looking for when it came to Iron Man, in the same way The Winter Soldier was exactly what you'd expect from a modern Captain America story. Stark is a sarcastic smartarse with his flaws as front and centre as his shining attributes, while Cap struggles with a sense of moral justice that many in the modern world think is outmoded and impractical. It makes for very different movies, but in my opinion? Two fantastic sequels, and all this 'THAT is how you do a sequel, in your FACE Iron Man 3!!!!' nonsense every time Marvel releases a follow up to anything needs to stop. Because if anything, when it comes to Marvel sequels - Iron Man led the way! 

Trans-Atlantica - Four Colour Warehouses and Snow Capped Mountains.

Hello, welcome and good morning to my first day proper of travelling the face of the United States! Well, I say my first day, but these posts are probably going to cover a few days at a time to stop it all becoming too unwieldy. That said I guess it depends how much happens on any given day and how reliable my Internet is.

Today was fairly laid back, by which I mean I missed most of it. I woke up after three hours sleep and felt pretty good! Until the afternoon when I glanced in the mirror and realised my eyes were more red than white, so sleep? Probably a good idea! What I can tell you though is that we went to a comic shop!



And when I say comic shop what I actually mean is comics warehouse.



Welcome to Mile High Comics! Some of you are probably aware of their website which is a great place to find back issues. I think I've shopped with them before, but the idea of them actually having an honest to god warehouse has never crosses my mind, let alone there being one you could visit. I always assumed it was a couple of guys running it out of their house, but I realise now that's kind of absurd. Either way, I can't think of a better way to start a trip than a giant room full of comics! It's just a shame I'm mainly a trade reader these days, and most of the trades they had were volume three or higher, without a volume one in sight. Combine that with the pricy action figures and other assorted trinkets and the place didn't quite set my world on fire. What it did do though, was remind me they add VAT on after purchase here, rather than including it in the marked price,which I'd somehow managed to forget. So you see, comics are educational too!

Oh, and you remember that snow I mentioned last blog? The flurry that came down like a storm of white wllhen I arrived and threatened to make snowmen of us all when we loaded the shopping into the car? Gone. Gone in a blaze of sunshine as sudden and blinding as the snow itself. Seriously, this state is weird and I almost dread what tomorrow will bring.

Turns out I needn't have worried though, next day was uneventful weather wise and fairly uneventful events wise. We had had a chilled out, relaxing day that I think we all needed and I'm only brining it up at all because I wrote that 'what will tomorrow bring?!' sentence yesterday and am far too lazy to change it.

Day three though? Insanity. We had a wedding rehearsal to attend, which I won't dwell on because it's the private business of friends, and guess what was back with avengance? The blizzard, that's what!

Even worse than before this time we had an hour long drive up to a mountain top and let me tell you, Colorado has not done much to adhere itself to me. The weather is as schizophrenic as it comes (and this is from somebody who hails from the UK, where talk of unpredictable weather may as well be currency) and the roads seem like a nightmare to navigate. What was a light drizzle of snow soon became a full on snowstorm. As we climbed up and up it became worse and worse, and while I credit all but two or three suicidal arseholes who almost gave us all a heart attack with their bullshit with being slow, steady and sensible going up - The sheer size of the road coupled with the lack of visibility still made it a very much a fist in mouth moment that left us all wishing we were situated closer to the church we were travelling too.

On the plus side one could argue it was good prep for the upcoming, never ending drive through the states that is to come and the snow covered mountain was gorgeous. With it's crisp white inclines and snow covered buffalo it's the first piece of truly natural beauty I've seen since arriving in Colorado. I couldn't get pictures because of the death road, but it did leave behind pretty views like this.



Still, even though I love snow as much as a small child praying to the winter godsfor a day off school, and had actively bemoaned the fact that we'd had none back home, I think I could've done without this. Especially when I know it'll all be melted sooner than I can enjoy it, the sun already beating down on the crisp white surface as I write this the morning after. It also didn't help that when we arrived at the church we were greeted by this,

Not a single soul was there and considering we were at the top of a freaking mountain it was reasonable to expect that nobody else would make it.

Thankfully they started to arrive in drips and drabs, and I got to experience my first wedding rehearsal. The idea of this is as alien as they come for me. Most weddings aren't intricate spider-webs of narrative calling for intense and emotional performances that touch the very depths of your soul. In fact, the majority of Christian weddings are pain-stakingly formulaic to the point where even if you'd never been to one, you could probably still do eighty five percent of the ceremony blind folded by what you've seen on television alone. I'm not exactly sold that we needed an hour to tell people where to stand and walk on the big day, but then as somebody who has nothing to do but turn up and park my arse in a seat on the right side of the hall, maybe that's lack of pressure talking.

Once that was over we faced what could have been a very long and dangerous drive home in the dark, but thankfully common sense prevailed and true to form by the time we got back off the mountain what had been landing thick and fast was for the most part slush. We ate at somewhere renown for it's delicious chicken and rampant homo-phobia, every meal coming with a thick layer of guilt despite being incredibly tasty by the standards of fast food and visited a Toys R Us that kinda let me down a little. There's a myth in Britain that everything in the States is dirt cheap to the point we should feel we're getting conned. When it comes to toys and games? That is absolute nonsense.Any saving is minimal at best and even the size and stock of the place let was a touch disappointing, it seemed about on par with it's trans-Atlantic counterparts as if it forgot it was situated in a land known for its excess. I can't be too hard on it though, as we did pick up a couple of great boardgames that finished off the night beautifully.

That's about it for now! Today the plan is to actually engage in some tourist stuff and head to a museum, find out if we actually make it or if laziness wins again next time!

Alan Moore, knows the score... Or does he?

So, something I wrote in my last post got me thinking. It's a topic I'm almost afraid to touch, because I know I have friends who feel very strongly on the matter, and it's hardly timely, but I promised weekly blogs (to myself, if nobody else!) and this is what has been buzzing around my brain this week. So here we go!

Last post when I wrote about Day of the Doctor, I mentioned in passing Doctor Who's inclusivity and how, at it's best, it had something for everyone. This got me thinking about something that got the internet somewhat riled a few months ago, when a snippet of an Alan Moore interview was posted around various comic book sites. In this interview, Alan Moore had the audacity to say... Well, see for yourself...

 "I hate superheroes. I think they're abominations. They don't mean what they used to mean. They were originally in the hands of writers who would actively expand the imagination of their nine- to 13-year-old audience... These days, superhero comics think the audience is certainly not nine to 13, it's nothing to do with them. It's an audience largely of 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-year old men, usually men. Someone came up with the term graphic novel. These readers latched on to it; they were simply interested in a way that could validate their continued love of Green Lantern or Spider-Man without appearing in some way emotionally subnormal... I don't think the superhero stands for anything good. I think it's a rather alarming sign if we've got audiences of adults going to see the Avengers movie and delighting in concepts and characters meant to entertain the 12-year-old boys of the 1950s."

 You can read the full interview at the Guardians website here, where Alan has a nice chat about the most recent project with his name attached and has a little pop at Grant Morrison to boot. But what you see above is the majority of the "offensive" material, and many comic book sites chose to cut it down even smaller than that, to a sentence or a snippet.

Now, let's make a few things clear. Alan Moore doesn't hate superheroes. I know he just said he did above, right up there, in black and white but he later clarifies he hates what they've become, 'they don't mean what they used to mean... I don't think the superhero stands for anything good'. At the time I also argued that, perhaps, he didn't mean to say that enjoying these things as an adult was emotional subnormal. Afterall, how could he? Alan Moore is a fan of what superhero comics used to be, if not what they are today, and will talk for hours about Shuster, Siegel, Ditko and Kirby with the best of them. In fact, he does so in great detail in this video about Stan Lee's contribution to Spider-Man. If those with a vested interest in superheroes in their adult years are emotionally subnormal, then he must be too. Which can't be right, can it? But in the time since, I've changed my mind. I think Alan Moore meant every word but he doesn't care about appearing emotionally abnormal for the things he loves, and nor should we. Surely, that's the very lifeblood of geek culture, right there?

Stripping away all the bitterness and the purposely confrontational tone, Alan Moore's point is fairly simple. The modern audience for superhero comics has come to expect their entertainment to grow with them and adapt into something that suits their more adult tastes, rather than evolve into something that may capture the imagination of a modern audience of children in the same way that comic books entranced him as a child. Some might see this as a good thing, some might wonder, in the face of competition such as video games and the internet, what else publishers can do but indulge their older audiences but for Moore this is a problem.

And... I'm surprised to find that on thinking about it, I actually agree with him.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm very much a lover of modern superhero comics and until I was forced to slash my comic budget to next-to-nothing I was picking up a good twenty-to-thirty titles a week. While I was collecting, I loved them. I enjoyed the highs of Geoff Johns Green Lantern enough to ignore the lows, I despaired at the cancellation of Doom Patrol and L.E.G.I.O.N. (still two of the best superhero titles in years, in my opinion) and I despaired that the current Legion of Superheroes titles in the new 52 didn't really seem for me. But as I was reading, I started to notice a problem. It first hit me in Batman, and it hit me quite hard years ago, just after HUSH was published. All the stories were becoming very similar, all built around the central pillar of 'MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEEAD!!!' angst that Bruce feels, all concerned with misery and dwelling on mistakes and something very peculiar was happening to the villains. They seemed to becoming more brutal, more savage, embracing taboos such as cannibalism and self-mutilation to make them seem more frightening. They were becoming alarmingly savage, and to be honest... Sometimes it was a very tough read.

Taking a few steps back I started to realise, this isn't something that's particular to Batman. It was rife in the DC titles I was reading. Green Lantern featured Black Hand blowing his own brains out, very graphically, on panel. Supposedly minor characters were being butchered in increasingly gory and creative ways to up the stakes in big events and make the new, big villain look all the more scary and ruthless. Barry Allen, a light hearted man with a healthy relationship with his wife and two parents very prominently in the frame was suddenly made an orphan, now driven by solving the murder of his mother that his father had been wrongly convicted for. Somewhere, somehow, in so many of the titles I was reading - It seemed as though the fun had either gone, or was increasingly being asked to take a backseat to the kind of drama, angst and graphic depictions of violence that, while I'd never say has no place in superhero comics, surely shouldn't be allowed to be this prominent.

Now, to be clear, I can only really talk with authority to what I read in DC comics. When it comes to Marvel, I'm not expert and for all I know, they're a haven of wonderful stories told in a way that's accessible to all. Although considering Sentry tore Ares clean in two in a gore laden double page spread and a couple of other, worrying story beats I caught drift of I can't say for sure. I'm also not saying that all superhero titles need to be child friendly, in fact (before you throw your Tiny Titans collections at my head!) my argument isn't that titles need to be child friendly at all - They should be family friendly. I can't help but think that if I can't pick up the core titles of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash, all these staples of the superhero genre and be just as comfortable sharing them with a ten year old as I would an eighty year old, in the same way that I'd very comfortably settle down to watch Doctor Who with just about anyone of any age range without thinking, then surely there's a problem. It's the one point I certainly don't agree with Moore on, superheroes shouldn't be for nine-to-thirteen year old's, they should be for everyone, and right now they're failing even at that.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses for why the comics are heading down this road, and I understand them well, but as touched on in my last post - DC, and in turn Time Warner, are suffering from something more problematic. This attitude of making everything dark, of making everything violent and of creating heroes and villains who live almost solely in the extreme with no balance has seeped into their movies. If you showed the designs for many of Nolan's Batman villains to people with no context, I'm certain few would be surprised if you told them they were designs for the latest slasher movie. Nolan sacrificed much of what made Batman fun and unique, and also the pure charm of so many characters, to chase something that was gritter, more realistic, more... Grown up. Yes, it was a huge sales success, but it ties directly into what Moore was saying above. Man of Steel is almost as bad, it's a movie where nobody smiles and the stakes are defined by how many skyscrapers are toppled and how much visible destruction can be crammed on screen at any given moment. In terms of comic book lore and mythology it's a spot on adaptation, but in terms of heart and mortality? I'm quite convinced it has none. One has to ask the question, who are these films for? What is the prime target audience? And ultimately, is it right that a Superman movie, Superman of all things, is aimed more at teens and adults than at a more family orientated audience?

Never fear though, it's not all bad! Because there is another point on which I break with Moore, and that's on the example he uses. The Avengers, the good old, superhero team up that was years in the making. It's not the best of superhero movies, but it's most certainly one of the most accessible. While Marvel comics may (or may not!) be indulging in the same slow, depressing march to 'maturity' that DC are, their film studios have just been fantastic throughout. Mixing humour, action, the right amount of angst and drama to create fun movies that I believe can be enjoyed by almost everyone. The Avengers is as prime an example of this as any movie out there. While it didn't get all the characters right, and while I thought a couple of the performances and emotional beats fell flat, let's look at what that movie is. Bunch of guys in gaudy costumes get together to fight an evil demi-God in a gaudy costume, culminating in an alien invasion where all the heroes have to come together to ultimately stop a force that looks unstoppable and save the day. That! That right there is superhero comics in their purest form, ladies and gentleman. Add in some fun, light-hearted banter, a layer of sympathy for the villain and an understanding that the stakes aren't tied to the amount of people being torn apart or the number of buildings being toppled on screen and you have a winner.

For as much as I worry about the future of superhero comics, and in what direction we're headed in, Marvel's films give me hope that we're not entirely lost in the quagmire of wanting to be mature and realistic, yet not really understanding what those terms mean or how to pull them off in a mature or realistic way, that other products have been slowly sinking in for awhile. I can fully appreciate what Alan is saying, and I can agree with him, but where he only sees the mangling of superheroes into something ugly and misshapen with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - I see a serious problem that, hopefully with the advent of digital distribution and Marvel's film work, DC's animated products (which have been, by and large, fantastic in keeping a balance between the lighter and darker shades of superhero comics without over indulging in either) and even Warner's own Arrow - Which seems to take just enough from both movies approaches to create a very entertaining program - Will iron itself out as a younger audience becomes more engaged with the characters and these products are easier for them to get a hold of.