Comics – Page 4 – Blue Ink Alchemy

Category: Comics (page 4 of 8)

Movie Review: Justice League: Doom

Even when I was younger, I knew there was something that set Batman: The Animated Series apart from other cartoons. At the time I chalked it up to visual style – the black cels really sold the noir asthetic of Gotham. However, looking back, the writing is incredibly solid and often goes to dark places for what is obstensibly a children’s program. I haven’t watched a great deal of the Justice League or Justice League Unlimited series, but after watching Justice League: Doom instead of shelling out for Injustice: Gods Among Us, I may have to correct that oversight.

Batman is, as a rule, paranoid. He’s a very rich man with a very odd nightlife and some very interesting friends, ranging from nigh-invincible aliens to smart-alec test pilots with magic jewelry. He knows for a fact that they’re good people, these friends of his, but he also knows that good people can be mislead, controlled, manipulated, or even turn bad. So he has plans for dealing with each and every one of these friends. Now what, do you suppose, happens when these plans get stolen, cranked up, and unleashed on Batman and his friends in the Justice League? This is the brainchild of immortal douchebag Vandal Savage and his newly forged Legion of Doom.

What Justice League: Doom does right is taking the focus away from major super-powered threats or earth-shattering kabooms. The scope of this film is a lot smaller, its tone more intimate, than most stories that deal with super-heroes, especially teams. With animated features, where special effects are less limited by things like budget, the temptation can exist for a creative team or vision to override more character-focused story points. Thankfully, Doom does not fall into that trap. For most of its running time, we see how Batman’s contingency plans wreck havoc in the lives of his teammates. And since the plans are meant to deal these super-powered individuals on both a physical and a psychological level, the plans can be rather insidious, and make for good watching.

The art style is crisp but may seem too childish or anime for some.

The nature of the conflict is matched by good pacing and excellent voice work all around. Both Kevin Conroy and Tim Daly reprise their long standing roles as Batman and Superman, respectively. I happen to like Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, and Nathan Fillion supplying the voice was a great bonus. With this core of talent, the characters really come to life. This helps drive home some of the moments that could define, or destroy, these heroes. There’s also the fact that many of those moments go to very dark territory. We have bombs bolted to people’s bodies, live burials, major psychological trauma, and even people getting shot point-blank in the chest. It’s clear from the outset that this story isn’t messing around.

Unfortunately, Justice League: Doom is not perfect. The nature of the Legion of Doom’s formation means that each member other than Savage has a personal beef with an individual hero on the Justice League, and pairings pretty much remain fixed throughout the final battle. For example, Mirror Master might have given Superman a run for his money, and how would Metallo fare against Green Lantern? Another problem is in said final battle; since the plans are resolved as a prelude to said battle, most of the interesting character points have already happened or are largely inconsequential. It feels a great deal like the final minutes of Justice League: Doom simply run out of steam, which is a shame considering it’s good opening and fantastic second act.

I really like Mirror Master’s design. The see-through look nails the character.

Stuff I Liked: The implementation of the plans to take out the Justice League. I liked seeing these versions of Bane, Star Sapphire, Metallo, and particularly Mirror Master. Batman revealing he’s always got kryptonite available made me grin like an idiot.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: Vandal Savage is perhaps my least favorite kind of villain: he’s evil for evil’s sake. His plan is megalomaniacal in the extreme and he has only the most paper-thin of excuses for carrying it out. I’m still not a huge fan of Superman; it seems difficult for a given writer to decide just how much power kryptonite has over him or how long it takes for the glowing rocks to weaken him.
Stuff I Loved: The voice acting is very good. There’s a moment about halfway through involving Cheetah and Vandal Savage that really impressed me with its audacity. I’m not too ashamed to say I enjoyed Superman getting shot. Hal Jordan remains my favorite Green Lantern, and having him voiced by Nathan Fillion was a great moment of fanboy enjoyment for me.

Bottom Line: For all of the imperfections I saw emerging, Justice League: Doom still tells a decent story and inhabits some of the more fantastical characters of the DC universe with some humanity and vulnerability. As good as it could have been with some elements mixed a bit more and a couple more chances taken, what it does is done well.

Art on the Internet

February 12, 2013 / BlueInkAlchemist / 0 Comments

There was a time, in my ignorant youth, when I’d say something is not art. Mostly this was related to modern art, be it the emotional spatters of Jackson Pollack or the austere compositions of Piet Mondrian. These days I know better: it’s possible to make art out of anything. There are stories to tell all over the place, and even in the 21st century, people are still finding new ways to do it.

The proliferation of the Internet has allowed more artists to express themselves and even encounter success in their lifetimes. These days, few artists toil in complete obscurity only to die before any of their works become truly recognized. With a little talent and patience, enough Twitter followers, and a lucky break or two, today’s artist can launch a career with much more ease relative to those earlier days. And the art in question has the freedom to defy old categories and conventions, writing rules of its own.

For years, webcomics seemed to be more like the Internet’s answer to sitcoms than anything else. Even now I would argue that sub-par comics like Ctrl-Alt-Del are the Internet equivalent of The Big Bang Theory. But webcoimcs can and do break away from the joke-of-the-day format. Some replace scathing caricature with breathtaking art, and others look to mix media in ways that just wouldn’t work on the printed page. Last night I was introduced to an example of the former, in the form of Unsounded, the tale of a brash thieving brat and her favorite attack zombie.

It’s more complex than that, of course. Ashley Cope manages to maintain a pretty regular schedule, and her tale not only has a clear narrative drive and truly interesting and complicated characters that grow and change, but she’s involved in extensive world-building and giving us a unique and fascinating look at magic, making it more practical and well-defined than some other works. A great deal of time and research has gone into her world, and atmosphere and history seep from many of this story’s pores. It’s well worth your time to check out.

As for mixed media art works, normally this would mean something is using both paint and sculpture, but on the Internet, you can mix static art, animation, sound, music, and user interaction to create a truly unique experience. I am, of course, talking about Homestuck. As much as Andrew Hussie’s work has inspired a veritable legion of irritating and demanding fanatics, the work itself is bold and experimental. It can be difficult to maintain a narrative through-line for as long as this story has, and while opinions differ on the many and varied characters that weave into and out of the story, the fact that the story is still going somewhere and has something to say before the end makes the long hiatus periods and insufferable antics of misguided fans worthwhile, at least in my opinion.

That’s just two examples of narrative art blossoming on the Internet. I only have so much time, but I would also recommend Lackadaisy, Gunnerkrigg Court, Cucumber Quest, and The Adventures of Dr. McNinja.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

January 30, 2013 / BlueInkAlchemist / 0 Comments

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won’t be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio’s flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven’t seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn’t ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back.

Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter’s only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter’s background with his father’s work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen’s father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered.

The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It’s like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.

Much as I rag on him, this isn’t entirely his fault.

This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn’t mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don’t know if this was Garfield’s intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben’s death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he’s learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect.

That’s actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn’t mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I’ve seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I’m probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.

This is definitely not her fault.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It’s a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that’s not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end.

Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting.
Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Also, Stan Lee’s best cameo to date.

Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is… wait for it… amazing.

Why So Serious?

December 12, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 1 Comment

The new trailer for the upcoming Man Of Steel film is available. If you haven’t seen it already, I recommend taking a look. If you’re a DC fan, you’re probably pretty psyched. Personally, I find myself wondering when Superman became so dour and sullen. The endeavor looks to be steeped in darkness and carrying a current of realism that, unsurprisingly, seems to be cast by the shadow of the bat.

I’m not sure how much my readership these days is familiar with comic books, but most readers would agree that Superman and Batman are very different heroes. Batman comes from a place of pain and weakness, motivated by a very tangible need for justice and vengeance more than anything else. With no superpowers or magical artifacts to aid him, Batman pursues his enemies with only his wits, his martial prowess, and the unlimited funds of a wealthy international corporation. Every night is a struggle, and many situations he survives are near-misses that nearly take his life.

Superman, on the other hand, is an alien from another world. Yes, his world was doomed, but here on Earth he has god-like powers, and discovers new ones on a regular basis. Impervious to physical harm, faster than man’s fastest technology, strong beyond mortal reckoning… the list goes on. He’s the sort of hero that lends himself less to a gritty, down-on-the-streets sort of story and more to the kind of yarn where he punches ten-story-tall steam-powered robots in the face so they stop hosing down Main Street with disintegration rays.

Part of the reason Superman seems appealing to people is because of his outlook. For all of his powers and knowledge, he comes from a place of genuine concern for his adopted planet and its people, wanting to fit in more than he wants to rule or even protect as a pet owner protects their beloved animals. He tries his best to relate to people, allowing himself to be goofy or clumsy if it will both get their attention and cover up what he really is, and even when he’s showing his true self, he speaks to the innocent with a sort of ‘aw, shucks’ charm that, when presented right, does make him a bit more endearing.

Both Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh were in productions that got this. Back in the Donner days, Superman had a winning smile and did his utmost to be humble in light of everything people saw him doing, and Clark Kent often came off as oafish or shy, despite the opposite clearly being the case if you looked hard enough (Lois Lane did). And in Superman Returns, both identities of the character remain consistent. Clark is still apparently timid, while Superman still has those pearly whites and still wants to remind you that, statistically, flying is the safest way to travel. For all of its problems, Superman Returns not only gave us a fantastic Lois Lane, but also ‘got’ what made Superman a somewhat more interesting character.

Man of Steel, on the other hand, feels like it’s going in another direction, one I’m not entirely sold on.

From Pa Kent apparently being a less than upstanding guy to Clark sporting what is colloquially known as a “beard of sorrow,” Man of Steel is looking to be a super-serious take on Superman. It’s plying more towards a realistic look at the superhero and his world. I can’t comment on the quality of the work nor on the writing of it, but when it comes to this theme and premise, the big question I have is: Why? Why do away with the whimsy and charm? Why, indeed, is it so serious?

Over the last few years this trend has emerged, in which some familiar stories and characters get a “dark and gritty” reboot. Thankfully, they’re not as dipped in darkness and gothic architecture as they were in the 90s, but I find myself wondering why this keeps happening. Taking an old story in a new direction is something I’d definitely advocate, but does it always have to be in this serious a direction? There’s a reason the Flash Gordon TV series from a few years back failed, other than the writing problems: you lose a lot of the magic when you take out some of the more fantastical elements of a story. I haven’t seen more than a couple episodes of Once Upon A Time, but what I did see looked to be trying a balance between real-world storytelling and a fresh take on a world shared by all sorts of fairy tales. It’s one of those things I’ve been recommended to watch, and I admit I’m curious.

I can understand why some people don’t like camp, why going completely headlong into the otherworldly and fantastical turns some people off, but to me, this is too far in the other direction. It can and should be possible to balance a realistic grounding of well-rounded characters with greater flights of fancy and a bit of the pure escapism we seem to have lost in the last decade or two. Sometimes we want to see our heroes be upbeat folks who face their challenges without fear and maybe buckle a swash or two. They don’t always have to be sad sack sentinels of What Is Right And Wrong with a heavy moral decision to make. In other words, not every superhero movie has to be The Dark Knight.

In fact, I’m pretty sure Batman would give Superman a Kryptonite kick in the balls for stepping on his turf.

Punishing Dirty Laundry

July 18, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 1 Comment

I’m going to go out a limb and post my initial reaction to a short film from San Diego’s Comic Con, which I will link you to right here.

Holy. Shit.

I haven’t said a lot about Marvel’s character of Frank Castle, a.k.a. the Punisher, since way back in 2010 when I wrote about our heroes and their booze. I happen to think he’s somewhat underrated and incredibly interesting, not to mention a blast to watch in action. Without the cash, high-profile secret identity, or superpowers of other members of Marvel’s mighty pantheon, Frank takes his crusade against crime to the streets in a very straight-forward, brutal way. He opts for firearms, but isn’t above using edged weapons, bows, explosives, traps, industrial equipment, or even his bare fists to get the job done. There’s a rawness to the Punisher, and as much as he might seem to be emotionless at times, to me he always seems to be operating on anger bordering on unstoppable homicidal rage, tempered only by the memories of his family and the innocent people that he does, in fact, protect.

They’ve tried to adapt the Punisher the big screen several times. The first attempt was back in the 80s, and was little more than some shallow attempt to use the name & likeness to cash in on the Death Wish series and similar franchises of the time. Dolph Lundgren got the title role, and while he may be a physically intimidating presence, he acts about as well as a lumpy side of beef with a crew cut. Once Marvel became the cool comic kid on the block again, in 2004 Lionsgate took another stab at it with Thomas Jane in the lead role. It mixed elements of current books with a dichotomy of aesthetic that some found jarring, while others had trouble taking a villainous John Travolta seriously. 2008 saw the release of Punisher War Zone, which again was lead by a different Punisher, this time Ray Stevenson of Rome fame who would go on to become Volstagg the Voluminous in Thor.

I am of the opinion that while both 2000s Punishers are equally valid interpretations of the character, War Zone feels closer to the comics while Jane’s Punisher has more emotional weight and innovative ideas. Pretty much War Zone’s answer to everything is “shoot it”. I’m all for shooty action, but the non-shooty bits with Detective Soap and Frank’s relationship with non-criminal humans feel too short. Meanwhile, Thomas Jane is seen quite often outside of shooting situations. The violence comes in quick bursts outside of the inevitable tragic massacre that is part of his origin and the extended sequence at the end. Finally, Frank does things with phone surveillance, laundered money, and a portable fire hyrdrant that shows him as more than a mook with some guns and a grudge.

This is why I think the short film Dirty Laundry works well enough to get the Holy Shit reaction.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Ray Stevenson. But Thomas Jane just nails the slow burning buildup of Frank witnessing crime after crime. He conveys a great deal while saying very little. He’s taciturn without being stoic, if that makes any sense. Again, violence happens quickly and with unflinching brutality, and as we approach the climax of the film, the building tension is palpable. And hell, it’s got Ron Perlman in it.

Hey, guys at Marvel, writers and directors and producers: Can we get more of this, please? Imagine what this could do for Daredevil. Some tension-building set pieces, maybe a mention of the Kingpin, Hell’s Kitchen by night, and BAM, Man Without Fear. I’d also love to see a short of Doctor Strange visiting an older woman or a child who’s been possessed, and he needs to some astral projection to kick the demon or whatever out of the victim. And you can’t tell me Hugh Jackman wouldn’t be behind donning the sideburns and hairdo for ten minutes of badassery in a backwoods bar or a Pachinko hall or something.

But over and above all the pie-in-the-sky speculation, I’m really happy with how this short turned out, and hope to see more work of this nature, especially if Thomas Jane’s Punisher is involved.

Welcome back, Frank.

Category: Comics (page 4 of 8)

Movie Review: Justice League: Doom

Art on the Internet

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Why So Serious?

Punishing Dirty Laundry

Buy This Book!

Search the Blog

Recent Posts

Getcher Updates!

Works

Legal Stuff

Categories

Archives