"Mostly underwhelming film." - Richard Roeperm, Chicago Sun-Times.
"Destructive overstatement and flat-footed homilies" - Lisa Kennedy, The Denver Post.
"Exceptionally unpleasant viewing experience" - Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post's.
No, these aren't the predicted reviews for the much maligned Justice League movie based on its rumoured attempts over the past half-decade. These are the legitimate very recent reviews of the rebooted Superman movie Man of Steel. Now, when a movie comes out and polarises the public in such a starkly contrasting manner, one must ask and reflect - was it worth it? Was it really what we wanted? The question is not, however, "Did we gain a majority?" Popularity, is a secondary consequence of the quality, the ideal for which you strive towards. Looking at the movie itself, there have been numerous articles thus far across the wide world of internet both lauding its efforts or nitpicking it to shreds. The verdict is clear. It grounds Superman to a more modern level. It makes Superman somewhat relatable emotionally. On the other hand, it has distanced itself miles away from the Superman of old (much to the anger of many). It has shredded its Williams theme, and has redesigned itself. It even put Superman's morals in a more non-idealistic world. For the concept of reboot, it would be a renowned success. For the concept of Superman lore, now that is where the debate is.
In light of my opening article, I would like to take a look at why Warner Bros. must truly utilise DC's arsenal of iconic heroes in a completely different light to Marvel, in order to overcome the disadvantage with this roster of heroes. Why, you may ask, all this fanboyism over DC rather Marvel material? That is simple: It's not about climbing out of second fiddle. Marvel already know where they're headed, but DC are lost in a puddle of confusion. We, as the audience, must then hop off the fence and actually paint a picture that can be imagined.
For the Man of Steel, as mentioned above, the response is divisive. But for every negative article, there is a very bright light on the other side. And to this end of the tunnel, those who wish to continue in this path, must face. The similarities in MOS and TDK begin in the concept that it "feels" realistic. Marvel has tried side stepping this somewhat, cleverly jumping to the existence of a Godly existence of Asgard, or the pure energy technology of Stark-world. I have no problem with these, and when I want some light-hearted live action superheroism, I will be entertained in glee by the work of Marvel Studios. However, WB has green lighted these 2 franchises of superhero that have embraced a more mature stance. Some viewers despise the darker tones and "would never let my kids watch this", but this is what can set WB apart. Its willingness to depart from the world of cartoonism and enter a world of humans and pain makes a more grounded adult mind have to contemplate the consequences of such existences. It is a completely different landscape to just creating fake unrealistic fantasies onscreen (which has no problem at all). This is a creative approach that is actually being actively avoided but should be attempted and embraced. This, is where WB can jump ahead in the game, because the whole premises of "grounded reality" is a path Marvel are slowly veering away from. Why can't we keep red underpants? The same reason we can't accept a Batman who is just impossibly overpowered. I want to see the challenge of having realistic superheroes in the world tackled by creative minds, where it works (rather than Watchmen, where it doesn't). The retort here would be all the lost elements of fantasy from the comics. This is the challenge that WB's filmmakers and script writer must try and conquer (and us!). If successful, this could be a whole new breeding ground of pseudo-fantasy. This allows them to no longer wander in the footsteps of Marvel and branch into a whole new pseudo-genre. Comics have always tried to stay one step ahead of the game in science fiction and real life concepts, why shouldn't its live-action counterpart attempt the same? That is why it is so crucial (and convenient human relation-wise, and inconvenient story plot-wise) to maintain the TDK with Bale in this cinematic universe. In their one other franchise which I neglected to mention so far, Green Lantern, the attempt to emulate Marvel-esque superhero fun, didn't quite hit the nail. Apart from the questionable use of CGI, the storyline was not a very subtle and emotionally complex movie that could somehow realistically sit in our world. Perhaps rushing into Green Lantern after Batman Begins was a small mistake. Essentially, this whole "realistic" tact that turns off half the comic fandom community and half the oversensitive general public, whilst enlightening the rest, is the approach I wish to see WB stick with. If you pursue something with intent, people will no longer see it as a mistake.
Before we proceed, there were many potential flaws in MOS that could be mentioned. It is all good and fair to criticise a piece of entertainment, striving for perfection. But so many reviews walked into their critique with a clear sense of prejudice and expectation. It can also be noticed that these disappointments morphed into an overwhelming crowd of enraged anger that engulfed us. Not only does it affect everyone's viewpoints, it is damaging for their own mental health. Honestly, Superman will never please anyone. Gone are the days of pure good and evil. The lines are more and more blurred now and that's why the villain who believes he's a hero is one we can love more. To identify room for improvement is highly encouraged in movies and all aspects of life, but we should remember that all movies, no matter big or small budget, is a creative piece of entertainment and never aims for "embarrassment", "shame", "insult". I'm no golden movie critic, but surely the conception of critics for food, movies, etc. being a dream job is derived from having to engage in an act of appreciation. As movie reviews these days edge slowly towards trashing and putting down movies, I would hope for us to refocus our attitudes towards acceptance and appreciating the efforts and dedication of the many talents behind every film. The only remote possible reason where people can feel entitled to absolute anger would be when false advertisement provides empty promises (eg. Iron Man 3), but even then, do try to enjoy every piece of cinematic art. Call this a paragraph of first-world problem rant, sure, but I only wish for our fanboys and critics out there to be more supportive of our communities in general, rather than feel entitled to feeling outraged.
Now that this reflection is over, this is where the fun begins. Let's take a look at how to re-invent some of the hidden goldmines within DC's roster. Who better to kick it off, than the last of the trinity of iconic heroes over the last century to spearhead the DC overhaul. As mentioned in last article, the name sets the "realistic" tone of the movie. No-one prances around calling themselves Wonder Woman. The only person that remotely makes sense self nickname is Batman. So in the case of exploring how Wonder Woman could star on the silver screen, we can take inspiration from other WB television series names like Arrow or Smallville. And it seems, they're planning a TV show for Wonder Woman called Amazon. So Amazon might be taken, but there's a few other options. Personally, I like - THEMYSCIRA. Nonetheless, I've heard questions asked about "Do we really need an origin?" Yes. Origins are so underratedly crucial for developing connection and desire towards any character.
SETTING
First and foremost element of the setting is the physical setting. By that, I refer to the location in which the character would be derived from. Obviously attempting to merge with our current world, the hard part is fitting in its origin. An alien planet is easy to forge because we don't know about the space as much as our own Earth. But within our own planet, is hard to forge false locations. Oh wait, we already shoved in a Gotham and Metropolis into America. Why can't we pop in a few more false cities and town around the globe? And expanding the scope is a very appropriate move as well. Not only being in America, Superman has already handled a global threat, and I highly doubt he's done with them. There's bound to be more global threats, why can't we have heroes from around the globe? That's how it works in the comics too. Before Marvel manage to whip up Black Panther the movie in South Africa, it would be smart for WB to pioneer a movie in the lands of South America. (The cameos in Wolvey Origins doesn't count. I don't think much of that movie counts for comic book canon. I also loved that movie as an action movie.) What's wrong with ret-conning a mystical country to just an unknown tribe of the world we're unaware of? I'm pretty sure there are some certain real life societies we're completely oblivious to. As to retconning a background for this character, creative liberties should be made with cautious pride. So apparently originally Iron Man was involved in WW2, and that was recreated to make sense and be more recent to our times, ie Gulf War. Obviously, WW might be too iconic to change time-wise into a recent emergence, but her regional history can definitely be modified into something relevant to us. We've heard Greek goddess, Amazon and also appeared as WW2 nurse, so perhaps a history of some Amazonian tribe, not necessarily mythical, where females are alpha in a tribe could be used over decades before her appearance into our world. But most important note to take out here is the ability to build new cities in this DC world. If we can have Gotham and Metropolis, we're going to have to bring in Central City and Atlantis. Wonder Woman can become one of us.
WORLD INVOLVEMENT/REACTION
I cannot believe that at the arrival of Thor, the only people that showed any surprise response were Kat Dennings and the mythical society of SHIELD. Whilst I still loved it, Superman's alien origins is sure to have more ramifications in sequels as all other articles everywhere have discussed (Luthor will love/hate this), but only really in Avengers have we really seen any public reaction to superhero activity in Marvel cinematic universe (at the end, for about 20 seconds). In X-men, the public fear is pretty omnipresent as a theme, and this could be inspiration to various aspects of the appearance of the "Amazonian Goddess". Whilst I'm not sure how I would react to a Amazonian woman appear as a world saviour, the public involvement is something I want WB to explore more with their DC characters. This was another failure in GL's movie, with his super green appearance just inexplicably being an accepted presence. Our questions over any character's existence should persist and be explained through the course of these movies.
EQUIPMENT/ACTION
Wonder Woman's invisible airplane? Get rid of that. However, as an almost primitive tribal character, her warrior equipment could very well be used. How the Golden Lasso works, it could be explained via some herbal remedy, I don't know yet. On her bracelets for deflecting, I'm imagining 300-esque filming sequences where she has increased reflexes against the average enemy. It's ironic that Snyder is already involved in MOS, but that's as realistic as I can imagine for now.
SYMBOLISM/IDEAL
Crucial to the ethos of TDK and MOS, is the symbolism of the character. In TDKR, it was very much criticised for the bridge scene with the burning Bat-symbol. I'm still confused over why it was there, but it still struck a chord for symbolism. I would've preferred a different means of symbolism in that instance, where time was a constraint in a ticking time bomb situation, but that matter's past and gone. Symbolism is unique to the 2 successful DC superstars and Marvel have had barely any symbolism, apart from the minimal thought in Iron Man 3, that Stark is the hero as a man more than the suit.
With symbolism, comes the ideal. I have never felt goosebumps throughout any Marvel movie. Maybe some of you have, but I haven't. Seeing the Avengers assemble only made me smile, but it was all just cheery content. But when you watch MOS and TDK, I almost feel compelled to go out there and do some good. This can be perfect hunting ground for Green Lantern, of which I will try and "reground" later. Whilst the symbolism provides the awesome hero that is in all of us, an ideal is different in that it is what this hero evokes in each of us. MOS brought hope, and Wonder Woman is famed for her beliefs in equality and love. This for me is difficult through warrior type character. In Wonder Woman, anyhow, here we have arguably the most highly known female superhero of all time. Through Selina Kyle and Natasha Romanoff we've seen pseudo-female heroes, but are almost are "cop-outs" with their cute meagre-sized female super flexible martial artist gymnast type character. No female has shown ability to outmuscle a male and this needs to be shown. The ideal ethos is the place Nolan has really excelled in his screenplay work, as well as through the music of Zimmer but I am totally open to new creative input.
CASTING/CREW
Talking of directing and composing, casting and crew are crucial to making this work. I'm no talent magnet and I don't know all the brilliant actors/actresses in the world. Nolan's tone needs to be an influence in the style which Snyder pulled off sufficiently. Wonder Woman needs to be someone with heart, class and valour. Not a sex symbol. Names that come to mind are Eva Green, Lauren Cohan, Gina Carano, Rachel Bilson, Megan Gale?
Having mentioned these actresses however, in future, I wouldn't mind ethnic casting, but Hollywood is still currently in a state of Anglo-dominated cultural standing, with the increasing African-American appearances. And then there's never an Asian lead, especially in male. I hope this can change soon, but unfortunately, that might take at least a decade.
With these suggestions, WB can bring from the DC heroes, a real sense of diversity, both in locality, era, and gender. I'll research and explore more characters in the future, and perhaps bring up some less wordy articles, but these are my insights into actual progress towards making JL a possible reality. To me, if Wonder Woman can work, and MOS has a sequel, these 3 can get JL going. On that note, JL movie should totally be titled JUSTICE. But to achieve the dream of JUSTICE, Warner Bros must not just create mere humans. Because if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely.