Free Imagine Blogs

It has been about a week since I last posted here. That's mostly because, well, I needed a week off from everything after school came to an end for the semester. Now that I've had a chance to breathe I can get back to doing the things I normally do.

I would like to first direct you to the latest trailer for Green Lantern. Does anyone remember when the first trailer came out? Remember how the Internet howled at the apparent comedic aspects of it? How far we have come.

I think this movie has the potential to change the landscape when it comes to DC movies. If a film based around a clearly second tier character that stays close to the source material can make money (and Lord I hope it makes money) then any DC character can do it.

Keep in mind as well that Green Lantern is coming to the theaters a few years after Geoff Johns stepped in and revitalized the GL franchise. The case could be made that he's on his way to doing that again, only with the Flash.

Will we ever see the Flash on screen? Or Wonder Woman? Or any number of other minor characters? I really can't say. But I never thought I'd see the day where I'd see Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan as a cardboard standup at the grocery store.

Another quick one. Here's the new trailer for Green Lantern. What do you think? It looks pretty snazzy to me...

Warner Bros. continues to pump out the DC direct-to-DVD films. The next one coming up seems to be Batman: Year One. As much as I generally dislike the work of Frank Miller, Year One remains one of my all time favorite Batman stories.

My other big favorite? The Man Who Laughs. The great things about both of these stories is that they tell of meetings that define the character of Batman. Year One is about Batman meeting James Gordan. It's also about Gotham City meeting Batman.

These are enormously consequential meetings, and they'll make for some stupendous on screen action (assuming they do it properly). The Man Who Laughs is also about an important meeting: it tells the story of when Batman and the world first encounter the Joker. It would also make for a great animated movie.

Unfortunately, it will probably never happen. The DC animated films have to follow certain guidelines it seems, and I can't imagine how they'd allow The Man Who Laughs. The story works so well because it gives us the undiluted horror of the Joker. The body count is high and the carnage exceptional.

And without those things you can't really tell that story about the Joker (there are ways to tell stories about other versions of the Joker, but that's neither here nor there).

Still, Year One is no slouch in the violence department. And rumors are they're gearing up for The Dark Knight Returns as well. So who knows...

Back before they brought back Hal Jordan I didn't want him back. I had no real connection to the character. In some sense I still don't. In fact, I was pretty pissed off in the beginning. Now, I'll admit that a lot of that was the snide smugness of a great many Hal Jordan fans.

Time passed and I mostly got over it. The Green Lanterns I liked didn't go away even with Hal headlining the Green Lantern solo book. And admittedly Geoff Johns was doing some interesting -- if weird -- stuff with the character and the book.

Then they talked about bringing Barry Allen back and I wondered again if it was really necessary. After all, Wally West had a great run as the Flash. I haven't counted, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out he's gotten more page time the the "Patron Saint of the DC Universe" ever did.

But they brought Barry back and I learned what a lot of people had said was true: Barry is incredibly boring. But setting that aside I've also grown comfortable with having him as the Flash again.

I may have gotten used to it, but I sometimes wonder if was really necessary. And I've come to realize that it was absolutely necessary.

How many of you have seen this footage for the Green Lantern movie? There's some pretty impressive stuff in there and I'm quite hopeful that it will make an entertaining film. But it could never have happened if they hadn't brought back Hal Jordan.

Could a film have been created featuring Kyle Rayner? How about Wally West? As much as I love those two characters they are defined by the heroes that came before them. Whether you like it or not, Hal Jordan and Barry Allen are iconic as Green Lantern and the Flash. They even have the dubious honor of having replaced their Golden Age counterparts as the quintessential versions of those characters.

It isn't just limited to the movies either. The characters and concepts in comics and other media need to be at their most pure. It's hard to explain who the Flash is by telling people that he's the nephew of the first Flash. But it's easy to say that a scientist was granted amazing super-speed by a bolt of lightning. Or that a pilot was chosen by a dying alien to wield the most powerful weapon in the universe.

In the same way that Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman can never really be replaced it was folly to think that the same thing could be done with Green Lantern and the Flash. Or Aquaman, for that matter. These are characters too powerful -- for good or ill -- to be overwritten. And when I go see the Green Lantern movie in June, I'll know that it was necessary -- and inevitable -- that Hal Jordan have the starring role.

The other big news from last week? Amy Adams has been cast as Lois Lane.

Now I'll level with you: I've never seen a movie with Ms. Adams in it. I don't get to see a lot of movies at the best of times and I imagine that a number of her movies came out when I was in Japan. I almost never went to the movies there.

Ms. Adams is clearly a "real" actor, however. She's been nominated for some Oscars as I understand it. Now, that may not really mean anything but it should count for something.

She also doesn't look too young -- a problem I had with Kate Bosworth (among others). In fact, at thirty-six she's actually older than twenty-eight year old Henry Cavill. This also does not bother me. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that Lois Lane should be older than Clark Kent. She's an established reporter by the time Superman shows up.

If things keep trending the way they have been this Superman movie could turn into something great. Here's hoping...

Apparently all the people who make comic news take Presidents' Day off. That's not really fair. I mean, I don't get the day off. I still had to go into school and try to instill a joy for 17th century samurai culture into a bunch of kids who would rather be doing keg stands while dressed as Abraham Lincoln.

But I digress. The only remotely comic related news I can find is this article mentioning that Kevin Costner -- yes, that Kevin Costner -- has apparently been linked to a role in Zack Snyder's Superman reboot.

Let us consider this for a moment. Set aside the fact that I'm not sure that's a good idea. Consider another fact we know about this film: all rumors point to Zod being the villain.

Now before you stop me, I'm not suggesting that Kevin Costner is up for the role of Zod. I'm just saying that there seem to be some serious deficiencies in some of the things we hear about this film (setting aside the apparently excellent casting of Henry Cavill).

Here's my problem with all signs coming from this film: It seems to be making some of the same mistakes that Superman Returns (which I liked well enough) made. One of these problems is connecting it too closely to the original Superman movies. Superman Returns did this by making it an explicit sequel. This new movie almost seems to be doing the same with having Zod as the villain.

Why would they make Zod the villain? There are a lot of Superman villains (good villains) that have never made it to the big screen. Zod has had his shot. And that's exactly the problem. Zod has probably been chosen because the general public is aware of the character from Superman II. A lot of people who know nothing about the Superman mythos know the phrase "Kneel Before Zod."

That brings me back to Kevin Costner. There's a real problem in my eyes with casting actors that are better known as themselves than they are as their characters. Superman Returns had this problem. Never once while watching this movie did I ever think of Kate Bosworth as being Lois Lane. She was always just Kate Bosworth pretending to be Lois Lane. I was never able to suspend the disbelief and think she was really Lois Lane.

Kevin Costner is that same kind of actor to me. It's always "Kevin Costner as Robin Hood" or "Kevin Costner as Elliot Ness." Those characters were never simply those characters when I was watching the movies. They were always Kevin Costner playing those characters.

Now, I'm not saying this new Superman movie should have all unknowns or anything. But it needs actors that I can believe. Despite not having a great script to work with, Kevin Spacey was a believable Lex Luthor. I was able to forget that I was seeing Spacey on the screen.

And when I see the new Superman movie I don't want anyone pulling me away from the story. I want to believe that Superman and everyone around him are real for an hour and a half. I don't think that's too much to ask.

More than anything, I think I'd like to be on TV.

I'm not looking for my own show or anything like that. I'd just like to gueststar in one of Warner Bros' animated DC series. Or they could do a Knightfall direct to DVD movie. That would be okay.

Of course, that last one is pretty unlikely (even if it's no stranger than a Under the Hood movie). So I think I'd just like to be on Batman: The Brave and the Bold. We could have a whole episode where You-Know-Who and I team up against Bane or somebody.

Or they could just put me in the pre-credits opening in a non-speaking role. I'm not picky. Either or anything would be okay, really. I'd just like to be on TV. I mean, how many times has Bane been on TV anyway? And this will what, be his second big screen appearance. It's not like I'm asking to be in Dark Knight Rises.

It just doesn't seem fair that Bane -- a guy I beat gets to be in an ongoing series and a movie while I don't get to do anything at all.

The next Christopher Nolan Batman movie is apparently going to be called The Dark Knight Rises. That seems like an odd title to me, as they already did a movie called The Dark Knight. You'd think they'd want keep the names clearly delineated.

Anyway, there's word about the film in the news today: apparently Nolan has picked someone to play Catwoman and -- get this -- Bane. Catwoman is not really all that big of a surprise. She's an integral part of the Batman mythos and it's not surprising that she'd show up before Nolan finishes his little "trilogy."

But Bane is a big surprise as far as casting news goes. I have some difficulty figuring out how he'll fit into the "realistic" world that Nolan has created. I could see Hugo Strange or Black Mask being made to work -- and I figured one of them was going to be the villain. In some ways Bane doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

That said, when you look at it another way it makes perfect sense. When we last left Nolan's Gotham City Batman was a fugitive. He's outside of the law, not trusted by anyone but Gordan. In the process of ostracizing himself Batman has cleaned up Gotham.

But what happens when someone comes from the outside to stir things up in Gotham City? Surely Gotham's "Bat-Man" has become famous by now. I can see Bane as a character who comes in from the outside to stir up trouble, forcing the people of the city to rally to Batman again.

Still, I can't help but think that Hugo Strange would make a better villain, considering the point we are in this story arc. It's very similar to where one of my all time favorite stories Prey starts out. That story, unsurprisingly, features Prof. Hugo Strange.

Regardless, Nolan clearly has some interesting plans for The Dark Knight Rises. As much as I might like certain things, I can say I'll be happier in the long run if I'm surprised...

Here I was, looking for something to blog about when lo and behold they announce who is directing the next Superman movie.

Here's the thing, though: I don't know anything about this Zack Snyder guy. The only thing of his I've seen was the Watchmen adaptation. I mostly liked it, but that's just one movie after all. He's done other stuff as well. Is he a good director? Bad? Fair to middlin'?

I haven't seen a lot of movies in the past few years. So, to anyone out there more familiar with Zack Snyder's work than I: should I be worried?

Of course, a big part of any future Superman movie will be the script. And I haven't heard anything about that yet. Baby steps, I guess...

I saw Sherlock Holmes last week. It wasn't the first time; I saw the movie in the theater. After all, I'm a pretty big Sherlock Holmes fan. I've read all the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories as well as my fair share of Holmes tales written by other others.

But this isn't really about Sherlock Holmes. It's about the fact that I didn't connect the name Mark Strong (Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes to Mark Strong (Sinestro in Green Lantern). That's mostly because I forgot the guy's name. I mean, "Mark Strong" isn't the most common of names.

Now, when I realized exactly who it was who was playing Sinestro my immediate thought was: He's perfect. I still think so. But what it really did was finally drive home to me that this movie is actually happening. So far it's been hard to wrap my mind around the fact that there is actually going to be a Green Lantern movie. This has driven it home for me in a very explicit way.

For some reason Green Lantern never seemed like a likely movie. I always knew it would be a good movie, but how often do actually good comics get made into movies? It's usually really bad comics (or rather, bad adaptations of comics) that get made into movies. And by that I mean the movies have nothing to do with the actual comics.

See Steel. Or Catwoman. Those are the two most egregious examples. But something seems to have happened in recent years: Hollywood is actually making comic book movies that are like the comics. Geoff Johns's new position as Chief Creative Officer is the most shining example of that philosophy.

Will Green Lantern be good? I don't really know. But I think the fact that it's being made at all is a serious win for super-hero fans...

Over the weekend I visited the cinema with a lady friend. As is customary for these sorts of outings, I allowed her the choose the evening's entertainment.

Imagine my surprise when she chose Iron Man 2. I knew it to be an adaptation of some sort of Marvel drivel. I had not seen Iron Man 1. But I assented to her choice.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised. There was a fine quantity of action and some degree of "shenanigans" on the part of one Tony Stark. The special effects were quite good and I did enjoy the pleasing "clang" sound that Mr. Stark's head made every time it hit something. It reminded me of the skull of one Hal Jordan.

I was, however, disappointed in the villain. He seemed a bit petty and foolish. Why did he not simply use his awesome magnetic powers to crush the "Iron Man" like a bug? Why did he insist on going through a complicated, unnecessary plan to get reven...

Ah, I see that I have answered my own question. Complicated, unnecessary plans for revenge justify their own existence. Still, Russians as villains are passé...

Apparently some word has started to spill about the possible Christopher Nolan produced Superman movie. The most interesting news to me is the clear demarcation between the Superman and Batman universes.

Personally, I don't know if that's all that good of an idea. Though I agree that they should definitely have their own universes, I'm not convinced that they should totally rule out a possible crossover.

One of the strengths of the recent spate of Marvel films has been the interconnectedness of them. It's not overt, but it is there. They may never get around to making that rumored Avengers film. But they've left to the door open for it to be possible.

By the same token they need to leave that door open for a possible Justice League film. Though it may never see the light of day, we need the hope that it could. Super-heroes are about hope after all...

They say that Christopher Nolan (of Batman Begins and Dark Knight fame) will be overseeing the reboot of the Superman movie franchise.

Now, this could be good or it could be bad. Superman needs some love on the big screen. Despite what some say, I believe a correctly done Superman movie has the potential to be bigger that Batman or Spider-Man.

That said, since Warner Bros. is never going to hire me to make that correctly done Superman movie they're going to have to find someone else. And it seems they're hoping lightning will strike twice (or three times) by having Christopher Nolan take the reins.

As I said, this could be good: Nolan may be able to get to the heart of Superman in the same way he got to the heart of Batman and help bring us the definitive super-hero film of the 21st century. Or it could be bad. It would be bad if Nolan took the gritty, realistic approach that worked so well with Batman and tried to apply it to Superman. We all know that won't work.

Of course, I'm hoping he succeeds either way. With also-ran comic characters getting the movie treatment it's a travesty that the first and greatest super-hero hasn't gotten the movie he deserves.

I spoke last week about the news that Ryan Reynolds will be Hal Jordan in the Green Lantern movie. That's all well and good, but it begs the question: Who will play Doctor Polaris?

Now, I'm obviously not holding out much hope for an actual appearance by the good Doctor. Hollywood's just not that smart. But seeing as Newsarama has basically cast the the entire mythos save Doctor Polaris somebody has to fill in the gaps.

My good friend Sally has suggested Michael Weatherly of the hit CBS drama NCIS on the strength of his highly adequate head of hair.

Do you think him a good choice, loyal readers? Share your thoughts. Who, in your eyes, has the screen presence to play the real Master of Magnetism?

Word on the street is that Ryan Reynolds will be playing Hal Jordan in the supposedly upcoming Green Lantern film (I say supposedly because I never believe a rumored movie will actually be made until I see pictures).

Anyway, what do you noted GL enthusiasts out there (and I know there are many who read this blog!) think about Ryan Reynolds as a choice? I hadn't heard him rumored before, but now it sort of makes sense. He's very good at the whole "slightly dimwitted, cocky, self-assured sonuvabitch" thing.

I went to see the Watchmen movie this past week. I wasn't sure if I was going to get around to it, actually. But my friend hadn't seen it or read the original comic so it seemed like a good opportunity.

And here's the thing: I really liked it. Now, considering how faithful Watchmen the movie is to Watchmen the comic you might expect that I'd been a fan of the original comic. That is most decidedly not so.

The art in Watchmen was (and is) of the highest caliber. Dave Gibbons is fantastic, no question. My problem with Watchmen was always the story. I found it far too nihilistic. It always felt to me that one of the central premises of Watchmen was that the world is horrible place and no, you can't make a difference.

To be fair, this may very well be me misremembering some of what the story is about. I haven't read it in a few years and I didn't particularly want to reread it right before I went into the movie. But what I do remember quite well is the bizarre hero worship that has risen up around Alan Moore. It seems like the weirder the guy gets the more people want to idolize him. It doesn't make much sense to me.

But I digress. This post is titled "Watchmen Movie" after all. And as I said, I liked it. It was a gorgeous film and the music really impressed me. All the actors played their roles to perfection (or near perfection). But I think mostly I liked it because it felt heroic at times. And the Watchmen comic (or at least my rememberance of it) was anything but heroic.

That may just be me. I'm a fan of the heroic. I'm a believer that people can make a difference. I'm a believer in the idea that just because you can't save the world doesn't mean you shouldn't try to save something Watchmen the comic always seemed to me an idictment of the very idea of super-heroes.

And for someone like me, that just won't fly.

But even if the heroes failed to stop Ozymandias from carrying out his plan they tried. That, and the fact that movie Nite-Owl actually seemed to give a damn that millions of people (and Rorschach) died. For me, the scene where he attacks Ozymandias in rage after the fact made the film for me. At that moment movie Nite-Owl felt more like a real person than the comic version ever did.

I think that's it, really. Watchmen the comic seemed to be trying to tell us that all people are inherently bad. But that's never been my belief or my experience. In Watchmen the movie there are people who fit into the Comedian's view of the world... And there are those who stand against it.

Those are the stories I want to see. Watchmen the movie was one of them.

I picked up the Wonder Woman direct-to-DVD film today. Short review: I freakin' loved it.

Longer review: It was really, really good. It actually had everything you could possibly hope for from a Wonder Woman movie. There was fantastic action galore, super-heroics, and an invisible jet.

I'm not going to go into too much here because I don't want to ruin anything for anybody. There is so much good stuff in the move that it would be a shame if I gave away even one great scene here.

Basically it boils down to this: from a comic fan's standpoint this is probably the best adaptation of Wonder Woman that's ever been done. I do not understand why Warner Bros' animation division keeps hitting them out of the park but their feature film division can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time...

Keep you eye out for an awesome guest star in the last few minutes of the film!

Are all Hollywood types evil robots from the future bent on the destruction of humankind's happiness? Are they vindictive artificial intelligences that power themselves on the disappointment of children? It seems that that may be so.

I was reading this little article about who Richard Donner thinks should do the next Superman movie. Now, my feelings on the Richard Donner Superman: The Movie I have made abundantly clear. I think that it's a mediocre, somewhat dated film treatment of the character that is held in far too much esteem by people today.

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) Donner's choice for who should do the next Superman movie is one of those people -- his old assistant Geoff Johns. Now I like Geoff Johns as much as the next guy (and probably more). And he's done quite a few bang up things in his current Action run. That said, he's still far too beholden to his old boss's vision of Superman.

Back to my first point: evil movie executrons from the future. Superman may be a tricky character to get a handle on. But it should not be tricky to figure out what to do with him on the big screen. This is the era of big, blockbuster action films full of startling special effects. Look at the success of Iron Man and similar films. Why hasn't one of the executrons turned to another and said: "why don't we just make a movie that features Superman flying around and punching bad guys for an hour and a half?"

Because they are evil robots from the future. And it's not in their interest to see Braniac get his ass kicked on the silver screen. Plus, they run on the shattered dreams of children... And comic fans.

Good night.

This is the blog's 600th post. I think that's pretty good. Though I'm surprised I've made it this far. To celebrate, I think I'll talk a little about something that I've talked about before: how much I hate Marvel.

But this isn't my usual Marvel hating. In truth, I don't really hate Marvel at all. After all, yesterday I went to see Iron Man and today I saw Incredible Hulk. And it is these movies that have stoked the flames of my hatred. These excellent, enjoyable superhero movies with brilliantly intertwined plots. I hate them because I'm jealous.

I hate them because they're doing -- brilliantly -- what DC's corporate owners have never even tried to do. They're exploiting their properties in ways that both make awesome movies and tons of money. Sure, DC has had tremendous success with their resurgent Batman franchise. But that's it. Marvel's done probably dozens of movies in the same time frame. And when they falter (like Hulk) they turn around and do it again (see: Incredible Hulk).

But its not just that they're making so many of these movies. It's that they're now tying them together. Dark Knight was a phenomenal film. There's no question of that. But it exists in its own universe. Marvel seems to have done the impossible: they've not just brought Marvel characters and properties to the big screen -- they've brought the entire frickin' Marvel Universe to the big screen. And I hate them for it.

I hate them for it because every time I enjoy one of those MU movies I think that in some alternate reality I might be watching a DCU movie instead. I'd be watching awesome films about characters I like rather than awesome films about characters I merely tolerate.

Instead of seeing Tony Stark be an ass on screen, I could be watching Hal Jordan do the same. Instead of watching the Hulk tear up the streets of New York I could be watching the Flash tear up the streets of Central City. Instead of hints for an Avengers film we would be seeing hints of the Justice League of America.

But then, maybe it's not Marvel that deserves my ire. After all, can I really fault them for managing their properties well? Perhaps I should reserve my anger for Warner Bros. After all; they're the ones who are mismanaging some of the greatest fictional characters ever conceived. And thanks to them, we're all losing out.

Okay, so I'm back. Let's talk about movies!

There can be no doubt that despite some awesome films (well, Batman Begins) Marvel has done a helluva lot better than DC in turning its properties into movies. Nearly every Marvel character -- from Spider-Man to freakin' Elektra -- has gotten a film.

And I think that that has a lot to do with their success. Sure, movies like Elektra were flops. But basically Marvel is just throwing everything they can out there. They're diving into the third and fourth tier of characters for movies (Man-Thing, anyone?).

DC needs to consider doing this. DC has a lot of very cool minor characters that could potentially star in their own films. I'm sure I could name a dozen if I took the time. But instead, I'll just name one: Doctor Mid-Nite.

Doctor Mid-Nite would make an awesome movie. A killer costume, a unique concept, and powers that wouldn't require a lot of special effects (the movie could probably be shot with a relatively small budget).

Plus, they don't really even need to look hard for a good treatment of the character. Matt Wagner's done all the work already. If you haven't read the Wagner/Snyder Doctor Mid-Nite miniseries go read it now. It's conveniently been collected in trade paperback. Go on. I'll wait.

Are you back? Now tell me that wouldn't make a great movie. It's an origin story with an intriguing protagonist, good villains, and even one of those love interests that Hollywood loves so much. The Doctor Mid-Nite mini is the best comic movie adaptation ever made. Even if the movie doesn't actually exist.

With the right director and cast, Doctor Mid-Nite would be a huge hit. I can see it bringing in far more than the meager amount I'd imagine they'd have to spend on it.

There are lots of characters in the DC Universe just like Doctor Mid-Nite that would make great films (even if they aren't ready-made like Doctor Mid-Nite). But unfortunately, DC is locked down by Warner Bros. They can't open their doors and toss the characters out to roam free. The result is one DC movie every few years. And when they're coming so sporadically, the misses are easier to note than the hits...