Time To Get Irrationally Excited About "X-Men" Again

Matthew Vaughn’s “X-Men: First Class” not only brought a deader-than-dead franchise back to life, it did so by making the best one yet. So a sequel was kind of expected. What wasn’t expected? That Fox would go ahead and quietly register the new film’s prospective title with MPAA. But they did, and AICN, HitFix and multiple others have confirmed that that title is…

…X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST.

The internet is now broken.

Quick-version, because I’m working at the moment: “DOFP” was a landmark story-arc during Chris Claremont’s defining epic run on the X-Men comics. The basic idea? It’s “Terminator” (which it technically pre-dates) but with The X-Men; involving a dystopian near-future where the human government is successfully carrying out that whole Mutant Holocaust thing that “bad guy” Magneto kept warning everyone would happen. In the original version, the older future-version of Kitty Pryde zaps her consciousness back in time into her younger self and tries to prevent The Brotherhood from carrying out a political-assassination (Senator Kelly, from the first “X-Men” movie) which kicks-off the anti-Mutant backlash.

Other than Fox apparently picking this title, nothing else is known at this time… though, obviously, the immediate speculation is that a time-travel story might allow the “21st Century X-Men” of the original trilogy to share the screen (and maybe patch some plot-holes) alongside the Cold War era X-Men of “First Class.” Also, it’s worth remembering that DOFP’s future anti-Mutant infrastucture was based around – yes – The Sentinels.

"JUSTICE LEAGUE" Happening. Maybe. Possibly. At Some Point.

So, yes, Warner Bros. is still trying to get a Justice League movie together, with “Gangster Squad” writer Will Beall being the latest to take a crack at the long-stalled project. Honestly, that Warners is working on this isn’t news until they say YES to the script itself (studios comission scripts for potential projects all the time) and I suspect that the only reason we’re hearing about Beall’s script officially is so to bury the less positive announcement that “Wonder Woman” is getting a script from the writer of the “Green Lantern” movie. Ah, well.
It’s simple math: “The Avengers” is the movie of the moment and (unless “Dark Knight Rises” or something else pops in an absolutely stunning way) probably THE pop-cultural event story of Summer 2012. If you’re a studio executive and you aren’t a least exploring options for a “team of superheroes” movie of your own, you are not being responsible to your shareholders. And if you already OWN a team of superheroes – say, one that’s already more well-known and widely-recognized than “The Avengers” – if you aren’t already MAKING that movie you don’t deserve to hold your job.

What I like about this is that they don’t seem to be waiting around to try and do a multi-film buildup like Marvel did. It could end up working out that way anyway – I wouldn’t be totally surprised to see a toe or two being dipped in the continuity-waters in “Man of Steel” – but I don’t know that it needs to. “The Avengers” was a different story – apart from The Hulk, almost no one outside fandom knew much about the other characters. Everyone knows who Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are. Even Flash and Aquaman are more widely-known that Iron Man ever was before the first movie. To my way of thinking, the smartest move Warners could make would be to make JL a top priority, get people under contracts and then figure out who gets movies of their own when the numbers come back.

And, honestly… while continuity-driven shared-universes are fun, Warners painted themselves into a corner in that regard by agreeing to Christopher Nolan’s alleged “nobody touches anything Batman but me!” demands (which may still hold for Superman as well); and starting now would put them way behind the curve.

Obviously, my “best case scenario” hope would be that Warners has it’s shit together and the already-cooking de-Nolanized Batman, “Man of Steel,” Wonder Woman and Flash movies are being built to tie-in to this; but if not I don’t think that many people would mind JL being a seperate thing, partly because (again, unlike “Avengers”) these characters are bigger than any actor playing them could ever be: Whoever’s wearing the Superman costume IS Superman.

Is THE BLACK PANTHER Movie Finally Happening?

Latino Review’s El Mayimbe – who’s just about the most scary-reliable movie news scooper out there right now, sez YES.

No official confirmation from Marvel/Disney yet, but these guys have been spot-on pretty-much every time they’ve made a call. If so, this will mark the first Marvel Studios production to feature a minority lead and will (unless I’m forgetting someone?) be the first comic-based film to star a black superhero since “Blade” back in 98.

More substantially, it’s a terrific character with tons of cinematic potential:

I don’t know how high awareness of the character is outside established comic fandom, but The Black Panther is kind of a big deal: The first black superhero in modern/mainstream comics, and also the first to hail (natively) from Africa.

Shortest possible version: Remember Eddie Murphy in “Coming to America?” He’s that guy, if he was also Batman. Panther’s real name is T’Challa, and he’s the King of an isolated Sub-Saharan African nation called Wakanda; which maintains a surface-level facade of being a “primitive” jungle tribe but is actually a technologically-advanced super-civilization hidden deep underground. In the comics-proper, Wakanda sustains/defends itself primarily as the world’s principal source of Vibranium – the super-special metal that Captain America’s shield is made of.

The casting on this will be really interesting – the mega-success of The Avengers and the automatic high-profile that will come from being the first nonwhite member of what is now Hollywood’s number-one “superhero factory” makes this instantly the biggest role specifically calling for a black male lead in Hollywood right now. Penny-pinching Marvel will almost certainly want to with a fresh face, but you can bet that LOT’S of established names are throwing their hats in as well.

Of less interest but still probably amusing-as-hell: The innevitable Fox News etc. freakout over the name (which predates the 1970s activist organization) and the positioning of an African leader as a superhero. This won’t come out until well after the election, of course, but don’t expect that to stop the fun…

Nerd-Wood! Get ‘Yer Nerd-Wood Here!

Source: Comicbookmovie

A pic snapped on the “Iron Man 3” set appears to set up yet the Marvel Movieverse debut of a huge part of Marvel Comics lore… and possibly open the door to hundreds of potential stories and characters – especially on the Bad Guy side. What a time to be alive.

POSSIBLE spoilers – though I imagine it’s more like “possible stuff you didn’t know about yet” – after the jump:

A.I.M. Advanced Idea Mechanics. Fucking A.

It’s kind of mind-blowing that these guys haven’t shown up sooner, especially in the “Iron Man” franchise. A.I.M. are a collective of mad-scientists who like to go about in matching clean-room hazmat suits and sell the fruits of their genius to be used for nefarious purposes (terrorism, espionage, etc.) “Where did so-and-so get that new super-weapon?” “Probably A.I.M.”

Now that Captain America and Iron Man are officially teammates (if not “pals,”) I wonder if they’ll keep the background-detail of A.I.M. having been founded as a Post WWII outgrowth of HYDRA. It’s the kind of “bonus continuity” you can take care of with a line of dialogue as opposed to expensive or distracting cameos/background-gags… though it would be incredible to see Toby Jones stomping around as the still-alive cyborg version of Arnim Zola (“Captain America” having implied that he wound up spirited-away by the Army like so many real-life Nazi mad-scientists.)

Of course, my mind goes to the same place I’m assuming a lot of your minds are going: Namely that A.I.M. is perhaps best known as the guys behind one of the greatest all-purpose comic book villains ever… M.O.D.O.K.

I want that. I want badly. I want to see Iron Man (or whoever) being menaced by a giant flying half-robot head with stubby little robot-limbs… and more importantly, I want to see an actual flesh-and-blood human actor in a legit, multimillion dollar studio tentpole have to intone with a straight face that his name stands for Mental Organism Designed Only for Killing.

Exactly What Is "Dark Knight Rises" ABOUT?

I actually didn’t even realize they were still doing The MTV Movie Awards, let alone that it was tonight. Apparently, the show climaxed with yet another arrangement of footage from “The Dark Knight Rises” – mostly showing off longer takes of stuff we’ve seen before, but now with perhaps a little more context…
http://www.springboardplatform.com/mediaplayer/springboard/video/ltrv001/955/501259/

The most interesting thing, obviously, is what seems to be definitive confirmation that Catwoman ends up as a good guy (or, at least, working on Batman’s side at some point) which is… whatever, let’s see what they do with that. The big stack of junk blocking the tunnel, alongside the previously-seen exploding bridges, implies that Gotham City (or a portion of it) is being deliberately cut-off/”contained” from the mainland; either by Bane or maybe by the authorities in response to Bane? Now I’m wondering if some of this is being taken from the “No Man’s Land” story-arc from the comics, where an Earthquake turned Gotham into an isolated, lawless island for awhile. “Escape From New York” wiht Batman? That’d work.

What continues to intrigue me (and possibly put me a bit “on edge,”) is what exactly Bane is “about.” He’s obviously an in-name-only adaptation of the character, so there’s really no way to say what his story/motivation/etc. are supposed to be. What we can tell, moreso from some earlier trailers, is that there’s a heavy “class war” theme at play in the film – as far back as the first trailer we saw scruffy-looking hordes ransacking mansions, dragging well-dressed people out of hiding places and trashing what looks like a stock-exchange. In this one it looks like Bane is leading (or at least “directing”) the mobs; which sets up some troubling subtext when you consider the filmmakers’ (scrapped) plans to incorporate real footage of the Occupy Wall Street protests into the film.

Is that the idea? Bane/whoever else using a villainized version of OWS as a tool of societal-destruction? If so, that plus Batman as the “good” side of this starts to feel a little “iffy” to me: Batman – the ultimate one-percenter/status-quo/order-as-justice superhero – swooping in to save us from a villainized version of the Discontented Poor? Are we following up TDK’s “shut up and let Bat-Rumsfeld’s surveillance network protect you from The Terrorists!” with “shut up and let Bat-Trump protect you from yourselves!”?

Maybe, maybe not. It does strike me that there’s something oddly “feudal” about Nolan and company’s conception of Batman. It’s comic book tradition for superhero’s to mainly focus on a single city, both because of logistics and… well, just because; but in this series Bruce Wayne’s Gotham-fixation feels a little bit less like focused-benevolence and more like protective-ownership – Gotham City as a modern-day medieval castle-town, Bruce Wayne as the Landed Noble in charge. Hell, he’s even an inheritor-by-birthright of his throne; “Batman Begins” having introduced the idea that the Wayne Family has long taken up maintanence of Gotham as a pet-project.

This isn’t to say that it’s necessarily “wrong” for this particular film to (possibly) be working from an anti-OWS (or, at least, “cut the upper-class some slack, kids!”) angle; or that it’s somehow ill-advised – being pegged in some quarters as a tacit endorsement of Patriot Act overreach certainly didn’t hurt it’s predecessor. But it’s interesting, and this being an election year you can bet it’ll come up.

Will Tony Stark Battle a SPIDER-MAN Villain in "Iron Man 3!?" (UPDATED)

There are pix, it’s been more-or-less confirmed and doesn’t seem like a HUGE story-spoiler, but just in case now’s your chance to look away…

ANSWER: …kinda, but not exactly. Made you look 😉

The buzz on “Iron Man 3” is that it’s going to be a bigger film, thematically and scale-wise, than the other two; but that the story is staying mainly in the realm of super-science/spy/espionage stuff all pertaining to high-tech weapons and especially other guys wearing weaponized exo-suits – with Guy Pierce playing the main villain (loosely culled from Warren Ellis’ “Extremis” story-arc) and Sir Ben Kingsley playing a master-schemer background heavy who may or may not end up being some version of The Mandarin.

Thus far there’ve been a handful of armor-clad hench-baddies announced, none of whom are big names, and the follow-up word was that – like Whiplash/Crimson-Dynamo in the last movie – there would be some character combination/overhaul going on. In any case, thanks to some “spy” pix snapped by The Superficial and confirmed by Latino Review (who’re apparently sitting on a MOUNTAIN of Marvel spoilers they just aren’t releasing yet) we now know at least one of the armored characters who’ll be popping up in some (presumably villainous) form:

LAST CHANCE NOT TO LOOK, KIDS…

4…

3…

2…

1…

Ladies and gentlemen… THE IRON PATRIOT.

Holy shit.

So what’s with the headline? Okay, short version: As part of the fallout from three successive Marvel Comics “event” miniseries – “Civil War,” “World War Hulk” and “Secret Invasion” – The Avengers wound up disbanded, exiled or turned to fugitives. Needing someone to run the government-backed version of The Avengers that had been established by Iron Man’s “side” at the end of “Civil War,” the Pentagon had the brilliant idea of placing things in the hands of a wealthy businessman who was also “reformed” supervillain who’d recently lucked into an act of press-friendly heroism during “Secret Invasion”… NORMAN OSBORN, aka THE GREEN GOBLIN.

Osborn (who’d already been managing a team of “rehabbed” villains as director The Thunderbolts) installed a group of fellow antagonists as the “real” Avengers using the now government-owned names and costumes of the originals, but figured that they also required the symbolism of Captain America and Iron Man for the public to trust them – his solution was to reconfigure one of Tony Stark’s spare suits with Cap’s colors and christen himself a new hero; “The Iron Patriot.”

Obviously, Osborn (who hasn’t even “officially” become part of the new Spider-Man movies yet) is not going to be in the suit in “Iron Man 3.” The spy pix confirm James Badge Dale, already announced as one of the heavies, is wearing it for these shots; so it seems he’s still a bad guy… but his purpose is unclear.

Here’s what intrigues me about this: The visual of a villain wearing what amounts to an even more ostentatious version of Captain America’s uniform (it’s probably too much to hope that Cap himself will show up as part of this) is “edgier” than we’ve come to expect from Marvel to begin with, and the specter of a stars-and-stripes clad villain in a movie set-in and partially-financed-by China raises a certain amount of “hmm…” potential. Iron Patriot’s original function was as a one-man (literal) “false flag” operation, and writer/director Shane Black has repeatedly invoked “Tom Clancy” as the angle the film’s story is working from – are we seeing the beginnings of the film’s plot? Maybe an attempt to start/avert a U.S./China war via a bad guy claiming to represent America?

I like this. I like it a lot.

UPDATED: Latino Review now thinks it might alternate be a similar-looking but less confusingly-backstoried character called “Detroit Steel.” If so, let me be the first to call possible-foul on using anyone named “Detroit” as a villain in these times – that place has suffered enough.

Solidarity

My night-time working background noise is generally The Daily Show and Colbert, followed by the overnight replays of MSNBC’s opinion-show block, followed by a mad scramble to find something – anything – to watch other than Ed Schultz. Before anyone asks, yes – I get my “equal time” fill of right-wing talkers in daylight hours while I’m driving.

NOTE: Remainder of post involves politics. Don’t want to read it? Then don’t 😉


I don’t watch/read/listen to “the news” for information, I do it because I like hearing things argued out by smart people and because the only way to remain aware of media manipulation of info is to stay engaged with it – block it out for too long, and you forget the two key facts of living an informed life: 1.) That there are such things as objective truths – just very, very few of them; and 2.) that everyone is aiming to “sell you” on something, even the folks who truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are not.

Tonight, though, I’ll be paying closer attention than usual to see what – if anything – MSNBC’s top guns (Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews) have to say about the public-pillorying of their fellow host Chris Hayes.

For those who don’t follow this stuff, over the weekend Hayes brought up for discussion his (personal) discomfort with the way terms like “hero” and “valor” are blanketly-applied to military service in and of itself in the context of the Memorial Day holiday; his overall point being that however duly respectful we are toward military service, the very reflexiveness of that respect makes it difficult to approach questions when/why to use military force with the kind of thoughtful skepticism such grave matters deserve.

The timing is, of course, of questionable tact; but the actual commentary is about as bend-over-backwards and qualifier-laden as a “controversial” statement can be and still be a statement at all – he even concludes with “But maybe I’m wrong about that.” This, of course, did not prevent the right-wing media from pouncing on him. They can hardly be blamed for the obvious glee they took in doing so – Hayes’ approach and overall demeanor is practically a caricature of what Michael Bay’s America thinks of when it sneers about “liberal elitism;” and The Right did it’s usual classy job of “taking him down” by inferring that he was effeminate (because, after all, there is no greater sin than to a dumb ol’ GIRL!) and chortling about his use of the phrase “rhetorically proximate,” the kind of big fancy book-learnin’ words that “normal people” would never use.

Hayes has, of course, offered an apology/clarification; which reads as sincere and reasoned but also utterly unnecessary. He didn’t say “soldiers aren’t heroes,” he didn’t even issue a statement of anything other than to offer his own personal view – which he admits is difficult for him to grapple with and may well be incorrect! – for discussion. The only thing he did “wrong” was to do this in the context of the present-day American media culture; where nuance and thoughtfulness are four-letter words.

The problem Hayes faces is that we live in a culture that vilifies any approach to the word that does not exist in terms of simple, basic wisdom. We prefer definitive statements of right and wrong or good and evil to nuance and intellectual inquiry. Something is either an absolute good or an eternal wrong; and to suggest that there may be layers or issues of context is to be uncertain and thus somehow weak. It’s a strain of anti-intellectualism that taints and corrupts just about every facet of our existence; viewed most-glaringly in the way our allegedly modern culture heaps far greater import on religious “truths” – which are by-design simple, easy-to-digest and require very little mental effort beyond blind acceptance – over scientific facts which are often more-difficult to comprehend.

But it also subtly (yet profoundly) colors they way we approach the rest of the world, and the way the rest of the world approaches us: Far, far too much stock is placed “common sense” and “folk wisdom.” We perpetuate the pleasant yet disastrous LIE that “simple truths” that any random dolt can easily understand are innately superior to academic, scientific or merely “complex” solutions that require effort and study to arrive at: The hard, unpleasant fact of the matter is that most of the time the “average joe” and his simple, common-sense answer – however likable and approachable both may be – are going to be wrong; while the “cold” or “detached” intellectual is usually going to be right. Because the world is not simple and grows less so every day.

Folks, when I spout-off about “Thinkers vs. Believers” (and I’m well aware that many take reasonable exception to the terminology which is, ironically, perhaps a bit too simplified for it’s own good) this is what I’m talking about. It’s this horrible, destructive notion of acknowledging the world as a complex place requiring thoughtful, nuanced solutions that – yes! – are indeed better suited to those of an intellectual persuasion is somehow tantamount to weakness. The idea that simplistic, “right or wrong, black or white” decision making – a fundamentally ignorant approach ill-suited to modern life that too many mistake as some kind of anachronistic masculine virtue – carries some kind of moral righteousness.

One is free to agree or disagree with Chris Hayes or anyone else – for my part, I understand and agree with his overall point while understanding the need for sentiment and symbolism in such matters – but the idea that asking the question or having a viewpoint that isn’t 100% binary about such an important issue is everything that is broken and bleeding about American culture handily summarized. Complexity and nuance are not personal failings, they are virtues. “Simple solutions” should be mistrusted and vetted, not deified. Ignorance ought to be a mark of shame, while intelligence and ability to take an intellectual approach should be a mark of great character.

Chris Hayes may or may not have been “wrong,” but his willingness to think about it in the first place makes him the innate superior of every “average”-pandering political hack who spent the weekend throttling him. And I hope that other thoughtful people in the media or otherwise on either “side” don’t give in to the temptation to throw him under the bus for the crime of being a thinking person in a time and place where that is unwelcome.