So much fun stuff!
Aquaman is lookin’ rather hot.
I don’t want to see this, I hated King Kong when I was a kid, and here we go again, Giant ape, guns, explosions, napalm, all that shit. But, Tom Hiddleston…
Suicide Squad – Comic-Con First Look.
Waiting, waiting waiting. So looking forward to this one.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them – Comic-Con Trailer.
Oh, I am such a sucker for this kind of thing.
YES! Yes, yes, yes.
Aaaaaaaaaaand, a sequel to The Blair Witch Project (we’re going to pretend that 2nd flick never happened):
And PZ picked up one I missed: Marvel’s Luke Cage!
The overall theme of comicdom seems to be: “There are more powerful people than you, that do interesting things and you should fear and worship them.” It’s not at all totalitarian. Nope. You little people get out of the mutant oligarchy’s way while we determine your future. Trust us.
Oh, I don’t think that’s true. Yeah, it’s people more powerful that regular folk, superheroes and all that. And they are often portrayed with flaws upfront and center, because they are people, with the same problems and fuck ups as everyone else. Okay, well Wonder Woman isn’t strictly human, but human enough. And that movie looks *great* and it’s about damn time.
Me:
As in I have been waiting for, oh, around 48, 50 years for a Wonder Woman movie.* That’s reasonable wait time for representation, yeah?
*No, the teevee show, Wonder Breasts doesn’t count.
I notice Wonder Woman is wearing kind of chunky wedges instead of heels. That’s a bit better, but don’t you think Wonder Woman would be wearing jump boots? They missed a chance to get Doc Martens’ to produce a wonderwoman boot and sponsor it! $$$$
And they are often portrayed with flaws upfront and center
Fairly recently. A step in the right direction, probably coincidental with the power elite continuing to fuck things up.
Marcus:
Considering how long it’s been for a serious Wonder Woman movie, I’ll worry about shoes later. It’s also set during WWI.
No, it’s been that way with a lot of characters, going waaaaay back, decades back. I’ve been reading comics a long time. Another thing, too, is that generally, superheroes are often depicted going against the status quo, and up against the big-ass powers that be, that no one else is able to take on. Naturally, these things are depicted in a larger than life way, because comics, but they’re pretty social justice based, always have been.
Caine@#6: Good points. I stand corrected.
Have you ever read “the ten cent plague”?
I have not read that. I do know a lot about comics and the culture wars though, especially as I lived through the last throes of that war in the 60s. I had every single MAD magazine, they were as cherished as the stacks of comics, and I well remember the constant threat Gaines et al were under for this piece, that piece. The echoes of the comics wars were still strong then, along with the attempt to have ‘clean’ comics take over (meaning propaganda to keep da yoof in its proper place). The Archies and crap like that were part of the whole clean effort.
Michael Chabon touches on the early comics business in his novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.
Several interesting trailers there. The next few months should be a real treat for comic book fans.
Suicide Squad looks like it will be just the right kind of barmy, and shot through with a suitably dark sense of humour. Justice League seems to be really picking up the ball left by BvS and running with it (and Jason Mamoa’s Aquaman is indeed a ruggedly handsome looking chap -- you wouldn’t think someone who spent all their time in water could remain so hot).
And then there is Wonder Woman. As Caine says, we have been waiting for a decent adaptation of those comics for a long time, and really capable female protagonists not played for laughs or pastured off as love interests are still rare in modern cinema (though hopefully we will start seeing a few more now, after the incredible success of Ray in The Force Awakens), so it is good to see this character being given a real chance to shine.
From the point of view of loyalty to the source material, all kinds of comic references are in there, even the Lasso of Truth, along with Diana’s mystical origins.
I also must admit that, ever since watching BvS, and especially the scene where Diana goes up against Doomsday, I have liked this version of the character, more than anything else in that movie -- she is played as a warrior with no attempt to make that some kind of snide joke. Where Superman and Batman both fought Doomsday (well, Batman mostly just got out of the way, which is sensible when you are a peak human, but ultimately still rather squishy) with suitably grim, this-could-be-the-end-of-the-world expressions, Wonder Woman gives every indication of not only not being remotely intimidated by Doomsday, but also is clearly relishing the challenge the fight represents -- as she says, she has killed creatures from other worlds before. And while Batman took cover and Clark went to help Louis and retrieve the Kryptonite tipped spear, Diana was left to duel Doomsday on her own for quite a while… and she more than held her own, finally chopping his hand off. Indeed, throughout the fight she seemed to be better able to handle Doomsday than Clarke, perhaps because as a warrior she is used to relying on her skill alongside her superhuman abilities, rather than falling back on the advantage of raw power superman usually has, but which is absent in this clash. Plus, she has been at this for a while longer than Supes, and experience counts for a lot.
All in all, about as far from a damsel in distress stereotype as it is possible to get.
Then there is the point as to why she is there in the first place -- both Clark and Bruce assume that she must be with one or other of them, but she isn’t. She arrived because she perceived a threat after her conversation with Bruce and moved against it to protect innocent people; she needed neither prompting nor permission. A woman with power, perception, personal agency, and a heroic, altruistic moral compass? At this juncture we must ask -- OK, who are you and what have you done with all the Hollywood executives?
Humour and fun in DC movies? We are truly in the darkest timeline…
As for superhero comics, some of them can be very problematic, especially seeing as most “superheroes” are vigilantes. Batman is a billionaire who beats up on the disadvantaged and mentally ill while rarely ever addressing the conditions that lead to them becoming criminals in the first place. Superman did at one time fight against slum lords and the like, but he’s essentially a god so they can’t have him going against normal people that often, no matter how awful.
A lot of comics though are able to avoid the superhero problem by avoiding superheroes. Velvet is a great twist on the spy genre (“What if Moneypenny was the real hero and more capable than Bond?”) and Lumberjanes is an awesomely fun all-ages book with tremendous representation (it takes place in a girl’s summer camp surrounded by the supernatural, and in the racially diverse group there are two young lesbians and a trans girl, all low key and natural).
But damn, I can’t wait to see Wonder Woman, and… I actually want to see Justice League? Good job, trailer.
Wonder Woman. That one. That’s the one that should have been made long ago, and it certainly looks like they will make up for that by being pretty awesome. Cast looks pretty white, and Chris Pine -- well, meh. BUT Wonder Woman herself. Woo. :D
rq:
Yeah. Wonder Woman debuted in 1941. So, it’s only taken 75 years to make a movie which treats the character seriously, and not just as a mobile set of tits.
That about kills me, thinking not only of myself, but all the generations of girls who saw Diana as a feminist icon, but everywhere else we looked, it was always the same message: if you aren’t a white male, you aren’t anyone at all, and you’ll always suck, and be a second class citizen. All these years later, and it’s still pretty much the same, but to say it’s past time for Wonder Woman is a serious fuckin’ understatement.
As for Chris Pine, eh, well at least it isn’t Chris Hemsworth. He’s pretty and all, but I’m getting a bit tired of seeing him in everything. Be seeing him again in the new Trek flick.
Caine @ 12;
This is probably a horrible thing to say, but the truth is that I still tend to mix Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth up from time to time, and not because they share the same first name -- they both occupy the same slot of vaguely interchangeable handsome Hollywood beefcake of the moment, the one that Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise occupied until a few years ago. It has gotten to the point that I keep them separate in my mind by thinking of Hemsworth as the Thor guy and Pine as the Kirk guy, but that is going to fall apart since they are both in the new Star Trek movie.
A bit more variety in Hollywood leads, both in terms of the general kinds of people put forward and in the specific individual cast (once again -- Scarlett Johannson cast as Motoko Kusinagi. Really?) would be most welcome.
On that note; somebody cast Idris Elba as the next Bond already.
Scarlett Johannson cast as Motoko Kusinagi. Really?
Whaaaaaaaat? Please say you’re trolling me.
Marcus Ranum @ 14;
Sadly, I’m not. And look who they have cast as Batou -- Pilou Asbæk, another very, very White (Danish, as it happens) actor because… if the Major is White… then Batou has to be White too…. because reasons…?
They even have Rila Fukushima on the cast, and yet for some reason it didn’t occur to them to cast her as Motoko, since apparently it is utterly unthinkable to cast a Japanese actor in the role of a Japanese character from a world famous Japanese intellectual property -- you really have to get in a White person, dontchaknow.
Gregory @ 13:
Yeah, I know. Yes, Johannson is good, and she’s a serious hot property right now, but that doesn’t mean she needs to be in everything too. That said, look at what has been done with Dr. Strange, if you want to talk whitewashing. In the comics, Strange was always on the swarthy side, with black hair, and based on Chandu the Magician, no less. So they cast Benedict Cumberbatch, a pasty white guy with a weak chin, and then there’s seriously white Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. Really really? If they’d had any spine and any imagination, they would have given the role of Strange to Chiwetel Ejiofor, and managed to cast someone Asian as the Ancient One.
By the way, Gregory, thrilled to see you here!
It’s not a horrible thing to say. I do it, too. Apparently I sick at discerning which Hollywood beefcake is which. The one thing Pitt and Cruise have going for them is the fact that they don’t actually look alike. Haven’t been able to stand either one of them (plus Affleck, if we’re counting) since high school, but at least I can tell them apart. Pine? Hemsworth? Nope!
Local news has it he thinks of himself as too old for the role. :D Pick another black man, quick, before they give the role to another white guy!! (Well, a woman would work, too -- someone once mentioned Gillian Anderson. I could go for that.)
I don’t even want to talk about Scarlett Johansson. I’m cool with her earning a lot of money and being the Black Widow (awesome!), but I wish she had the guts to turn down a role in favour of someone actually fitting the physical description of the character she’s supposed to be playing. I mean, there’s not a lot of people whiter than Johansson.
Also what Caine said about Dr Strange.
Caine @ 16;
The things is, I like all of them as actors -- they are good at their jobs and strong on character work -- but they are being over cast left and right, and as you say in roles that they simply don’t fit. Johannson is great as Black Widow, but that doesn’t mean she is a ready made fit for a character like the Major, who is very, very different. Dr Strange really shouldn’t be so pasty, and it is not as though Cumberbatch is the only actor who does quirky and intellectual. And the casting of Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One is downright puzzling -- why would an ancient Tibetan master of the mysteries be so White you could probably cut them and use their blood as tippex? There are any number of other actors they could have chosen.
I can hear the excuses now; “*…Mumble, Mumble* ‘star-power’… *Mumble, Mumble*… ‘have to be able to put posteriors on seats’… *Mumble, Mumble*… ‘marketing profile’…”
The shtick is always the same, and it never makes sense. It all presupposes that the overwhelming demographic for this type of movie is White people (something I see no evidence for), and that for some reason those White people won’t accept an non-White lead… an assumption based on nothing much, since only the most photo-phobic denizens of the lowest, most wretched reaches on teh intertoobz seem to hold such bigoted opinions -- nobody else cares so long as the actor in question is good at their job and the script doesn’t read like recycled toilet paper (in other words, nothing like the Green Lantern movie. At least Ryan Reynolds got his own back for that in Deadpool. Repeatedly). And frankly, the monotonous Whiteness, maleness, straightness and cis-ness of Hollywood leads is so boringly bland and homogeneous that it impairs the telling of fresh and interesting stories -- you just feel like you are always seeing the same kind of tale, told from the same narrow perspective, over and over again.
It is the exact same perverse logic that holds that male comic book fans won’t go to watch a comic book movie with a female lead, which held such movies back in development for decades but isn’t even remotely true. Apart from anything else, what marketing genius assumed that no segment of contemporary male fandom would have an interest in watching a movie about a capable female protagonist? The assumption that to be male is to be automatically an unthinking misogynist tool is downright offensive.
————————————————————————————————————-
@ 17;
I am glad to be here, thanks. I have been trying to explore a bit more of Free Thought Blogs beyond Pharyngula itself, and since I have always enjoyed your writing and found your insights most valuable, when I spotted the link to this blog I thought I would give it a look, and after lurking for a while thought it might be time to leave a comment or two.
Plus comic book movie trailers -- can’t resist those… :-)
Conversely, it seems so easy for Hollywood to believe that people who are not White are perfectly willing to accept (yet another) White lead. So it works as both catering to White people, and not catering to people of colour.
rq @ 18;
True, you can at least tell them apart at a glance, whereas with Hemsworth and Pine, unless they have Mjolnir or a phaser with them respectively, they are both cut from the same square jawed White guy school of celluloid heroism to such a degree that they might have been separated at birth, which says a lot about the homogeneity of Hollywood casting.
Which, looking back on the ages Sean Connery and Roger Moore were while still playing Bond, is nothing short of hilarious. At any moment I expected them to bust a hip while chasing after the latest ‘Bond Girl’ (detestable term) who was probably half their age or less.
OK then -- Chiwetel Ejiofor. As Caine says the studio didn’t cast him as Strange when he would have been a fine fit for the role, and I think would make a good Bond. He is even younger than Idris Elba, not that Elba is actually too old for the role in any case, so the studio has no excuse…
I would love to see a woman as Bond, and Gillain Anderson would be a good choice. You could have endless fun with a female Bond mirroring the predatory attitude of the male Bonds, only now you would have the glory of ‘Bond Boys’. You could even cast Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine in the same movie as two of those Bond boys (to be fair to Hemsworth, he does seem to be quite happy to laugh at himself, playing the ditzy but hunky male secretary in the latest Ghostbusters movie, so he might well be up for it), and have the lead having trouble with mixing the two of them up just like the audience does. As an added bonus, it would doubtless make dudebro heads the world over explode to see a bastion of reactionary misogyny so ‘violated’ by having the shoe on the other foot for once.
And besides -- Gillian Anderson is a better actor than any of the recent crop of Bonds in any case (scratch that -- better than any other Bond actor, ever), and could certainly do justice to any character arc of a troubled spy struggling with her conscience and the moral implications of the shadowy world she inhabits.
I know what you mean. I like her as an actor, especially in the role of Black Widow that she has made her own every bit as much as Robert Downey Junior owns the role of Iron Man, and I understand that she is a professional actor looking to build and develop her career, but it would be gratifying to see her take a stand when it comes to roles where she manifestly doesn’t fit, like this one. It would only increase the respect the viewing public has for her and her integrity as an artist.
rq:
They believe that because it’s always been that way, and people watch movies, so, hey…
Yeah, people will watch movies that are all white all the time when they have no other choice. Pretty much all of Indian Country geekdom is unbelievably happy that Adam Beach is in Suicide Squad, including Adam Beach himself, who is probably still unglued at getting to be part of a superhero genre flick. People who are never or rarely represented will grab at the teeniest sliver of a straw in gratitude, but Hollywood just can’t figure this shit out. Nope.
rq @ 20;
Precisely, and yet Hollywood allegedly is not racist because… um… let me get back to you… *Sounds of retreating footfalls, a car door slamming, and a vehicle racing off at speed*
Combine this with the spectacle of the Oscar nominees of the last few years all being so uniformly White they would instantly disappear in a snowstorm, and you can see how popular culture maintains unexamined White privilege in much the same way as it maintains unexamined male and cis/het privilege.
If we’re talking Bond, this is the one I want to see: http://imgur.com/a/hon7Y
This would be beyond awesome. Anderson would pull it off so well, too (she already does something similar in The Fall).
Yes. But you know the strange thing? :D I feel a little bit bad, knowing she’s a woman in Hollywood and the issues Hollywood has with casting women (and aging women, at that! -- Johansson isn’t there yet, but…), and then to put this on her, to be even more selective in her roles. It feels a tad unfair, because I don’t get the feeling that her immense wealth and popularity at the moment will shield her from the outright agist sexism that is slowly advancing towards her (similar with Swinton, though how she even got into the casting call looking so white, I don’t know…). :/ Of course, I wish a lot of white male actors were also discerning in their selections, and more sensitive to their colleagues’ issues when it comes to casting in good roles. Such as Cumberbatch. Can’t Hollywood use White star power as an advertising method (as in, “Cumberbatch turned down this role in favour of THIS GUY!!!”)? Though that comes with a whole new set of issues. :/ Screw it, Hollywood just has to diversify casting. A LOT.
Sadly. Someone needs to tell them they could make even more money by making movies less white and male.
And yay for Adam Beach! Can I say yum?
Caine @ 24;
I still love that idea. The bit where Helen Mirren and the 20-something actor who plays the ripped nephew get together offset and everyone cheers for it always cracks me up; it is exactly the way things currently are with male Bond stars. Of course, onscreen the techy ex who is the uncle to the hot nephew would have to initially be furiously jealous, but will ultimately come around and accept Helen’s decisions, because she is a red blooded woman and she just has to do what she has to do, and that is why he still loves her -- girls will be girls and all that.
—————————————————————————————————————————————--
rq @ 25;
I see your point -- she has so much sexism already coming her way that you feel bad to begrudge her anything. I have even heard people opining about how long she can really keep on playing Black Widow, what with her age and all. She is barely 30 for pity’s sake, and… err… let’s just say still amply qualified to play a seductive super spy, if that isn’t a tad too much insight into the scary inside of my head. Nobody is asking such questions about Robert Downey Jr, even though he is north of sixty these days (and still looking damn good in my humble opinion as it happens, though that is a separate issue). That is how poisonous that atmosphere in the movie business still is.
Agreed 100%.
As someone who will be on the south side of 60 for a whole year and four months, the attitude towards Johansson is infuriating, because it’s true, when you’re 30, you don’t have the slightest idea of just how young you are. If you’re 30, you should be out and about, doing every damn thing you want to do, and if that means doing all the ‘kid’ things, fine, do them. You’re still a long way from old, and your body has not yet begun to betray you in a myriad of ways.
The fact that women are judged to be pretty much dried up, withered husks at that age, oh, that deserves more fucks than I have to hand out.
As someone only a couple of years over 30, I know this -- and yet more than half the time, I can’t help thinking of myself as done. It’s an insidious little falsehood.
I’m thirty five, and society still treats men my age as being in their prime, a state that continues for many years thereafter, and yet women the same age as me are already being written off -- the double standard is repellent. Just consider two terms from popular culture; ‘cougar’ and ‘silver fox’ -- each describes older persons dating younger persons, and yet ‘cougar’ carries a weight of judgement that the pretty much unalloyed admiration contained within the phrase ‘silver fox’ simply does not.
Again, and with apologies if I am oversharing here, but as a straight man I can say that many women only really achieve their full physical attractiveness, not to mention the confidence and understanding of the world that is such a vital component in a healthy relationship, when they have left their twenties well behind them. As a parallel, I remember how much of a mess I was throughout my teens and twenties, and how much more capable and with it I am by comparison these days. The idea that a woman should be viewed as over the hill at such a young age beggars belief, and frankly strikes me as very, very creepy indeed.
Our society is ludicrously toxic with regard to this
Gregory:
What I find interesting about that is that no matter which side a woman is on, she’s considered to be the predatory element. If a woman is dating a younger person, she’s a predatory cougar; if a young woman is with an older person, she’s considered to be a gold digger, someone with predatory intent on a wallet.
There’s no way for a woman to win, regardless of the scenario.
I think there’s something here that also adds the element of why women in their 30s are passe… because they’re so much more capable and confident. I was a mess in my teens and twenties, and it’s only now that I feel like I know something and have the gravitas (not that I have a lot of it, ha!) to be taken seriously. But that’s not a woman that a man can control anymore, see. She’s no longer young and confused and uncertain, she has ideas and confidence and *gasp* strong opinions. Men, on the other hand (as you say), at about 35, they’ve reached that age where they’re finally able to present that mature, steady, guiding light to younger women… and it just takes too much effort to treat women of a similar age as equals.
Dintcha know? Men is victimz!
More seriously, though, I find that characterization interesting, given that it’s a certain type of man(baby) (*khm*PUA*khm*) constantly presenting himself as an alpha male on the hunt. Contradictions, how do they work!