tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post1823901320567853270..comments2024-03-29T04:56:23.027-04:00Comments on Cockeyed Caravan: What's the Matter with Hollywood in 2013, Part 3: Filmmakers Despise Their Idealistic Source MaterialMatt Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07319984238456281734noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-6112318803791042762014-01-09T02:18:06.972-05:002014-01-09T02:18:06.972-05:00I totally agree with you! The way Hollywood is sha...I totally agree with you! The way Hollywood is shaping its heroes to become instruments of vengeance, rather than letting them thwart the enemy & save people, is definitely an interesting phenomenon in a post-9/11, post-Bin Laden world. <br /><br />In Man of Steel, Superman helps cause death & devastation on a scale that dwarfs 9/11, snaps his enemy's neck, then crushes that spy drone (the govt's quite reasonable response to finding a city-levelling alien living in their backyard) & threatens the military to leave him alone. This is the man we're supposed to cheer for? At the end, when he does his traditional 'fly around the world & wink at the camera shot', the 'wink' is so unearned. It would have made more sense if he'd have just stuck his middle finger up at us.<br /><br />In Man of Steel, if you remember, they also refuse to use the name 'Superman'. That's how utterly repulsed they were by the character.<br /><br />(By, the way, if you want to see how the traditionally heroic Superman would have saved the day in Man of Steel, have a look for the excellent "How it Should Have Ended" video on the movie.)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14134246408961081475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-31183168208888720622014-01-08T14:06:11.690-05:002014-01-08T14:06:11.690-05:00I would actually disagree in that case--The Hobbit...I would actually disagree in that case--The Hobbit, Superman and Star Trek were all explicitly pacifistic in their original conceptions, at least in a "let's disarm both sides and have them talk it out" kind of way, but the original SHIELD comics by Lee, Kirby and Steranko never showed any such idealism. It's true that the earliest comics didn't explore the possibility that SHIELD might be corrupt, but they were far from idealistic (in fact they were quite jingoistic and militaristic in a rather-harmless way). <br /><br />In fact, I would say that the show has the opposite problem: for the past 25 years worth of comics, since the late '80s, SHIELD *has* been presented as too-easily-corruptible in the comics, and I think that the show *should* allow for that possibility, but instead they've stuck to a blandly-positive approach. The show features characters (one hero and several villains) who give lip service to the idea of US overreach, but what we see always belies and belittles these concerns. <br /><br />I suspect that this is because they want "SHIELD isn't trustworthy" to be the big shocking reveal in Captain America 2, but if that's the case, they should have let this show foreshadow that revelation with some disturbing actions, rather than force the show to be blandly-positive until that movie comes out. In this case, I think that more darkness would be *more* faithful to the source material. Matt Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319984238456281734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-81180466164939055112014-01-08T13:49:26.674-05:002014-01-08T13:49:26.674-05:00You see this happening a bit on TV too with Agents...You see this happening a bit on TV too with Agents of SHIELD. It's hard to say how much is being "held back" by Marvel on purpose but at times the show is "comics, what comics?". We have been getting the odd begrudging nod to the comics but I think it was fairly crazy to not have a single regular character that wasn't from the marvel universe.<br /><br />It remains to be seen how much they are going to trash the idea of SHIELD being the good guys.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173674436409268142noreply@blogger.com