Batman – Page 2 – Colin McMahon

End of a Cultural Era: Superhero Movies Part Two – Iron Man 3 and the Avengers 2

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Colin McMahon

This is both a continuation of last week’s article and a very in-depth, very spoiler-filled review of Iron Man 3. If you wish to see Iron Man 3 but have yet to do so: don’t read this. There’s plenty of other fun articles on the website, read them. If you’re not the kind to mind spoilers, okay but you have been warned. There will be no surprises left for you after you’ve read this article. If you’re looking for the segment on The Avengers 2, skip to the end: last couple paragraphs. I’ll mark it off with it’s own bold heading. Okay, we good to go? Let’s dive into it then.

Last week I expressed a belief that we, as a culture, were fast approaching the end of superhero movies. There’s been a lot of them lately and at one point too many becomes too many. Yesterday I saw Iron Man 3. I found it to be an enjoyable summer action flick that definitely entertained me. There was just one problem. I didn’t like it. No, I was not a fan of Iron Man 3. I enjoyed the theater experience but afterward as I thought about what I had watched, the film’s flaws irked me more and more. I don’t remember the movie fondly and, if given the chance, probably will not seek it out to watch it again. That’s a more negative reaction than the one I had to Iron Man 2 (another flawed but fun movie). So the question becomes: why don’t I like Iron Man 3? I just acknowledged that it was (at least initially) fun to watch. It is not X-Men III: the Last Stand (thank god it’s not that bad) but even that was a movie I was up for watching multiple times. Yet no love for Iron Man 3.

Let’s begin with the Phase Two problem. For those of you who don’t know, Marvel Studios labels the superhero films they’re working on into phases. Phase One was the five films before the Avengers: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: the First Avenger. Then the big one happened: The Avengers. The film was meant to be a result of a combination of efforts from the five movies preceding it to create a movie that otherwise might have been impossible. Mission accomplished. But as the smoke settled over New York at the end of the Avengers, the question became: what’s next?

Phase Two consists of four films: Iron Man 3, Thor: the Dark World, Captain America: the Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy. If you’re wondering what Guardians of the Galaxy is – you’re not alone, it’s a film kinda like the Avengers but made up of heroes you (nor anyone else in the general public) has ever heard of before. What could go wrong with that one? Anyway these are the films meant to get us pumped for the Avengers 2. What’s my problem with these films: we’ve already had the Avengers. Like it or not, there is now a Marvel cinematic universe that currently contains seven heroes (eight including War Machine – sorry, Iron Patriot) and is getting more populated all the time. So where are they in Iron Man 3?

Okay, Thor is not on the planet, that’s an easy one. Bruce Banner also could be explained away by saying that he is trying to lay low. That works – to an extent, before falling flat against the circumstances of Iron Man 3. Now we get into the spoilers. During the first half of the film, Tony Stark’s house is attacked and demolished by the Mandarin (we’ll be getting back to this guy later). As a result, Tony is cut off from all of his resources and must rebuild himself while the world thinks he’s dead (the only one who initially knows otherwise is Pepper Potts). Yeah, Tony and Bruce became friends during The Avengers.

"Yeah I would love to help you but this ain't the Iron Man & Hulk movie." — “Yeah I would love to help you but this ain’t the *Iron Man & Hulk* movie.”

So worst case scenario: Banner believes that the Mandarin has murdered Tony Stark… that might be something to get angry about. Best case scenario: Pepper called Bruce afterward and informed him that Tony was still alive. I find this harder to believe because a phone conversation with Banner would be a hard thing to accomplish (he is in hiding) and even if it happened: why would Bruce not want to help Tony, given what has just happened? This is not Avengers nitpicking. This is how movies work. Whenever you set something up in a film, you need to keep addressing it: this is what separates films from comic books. Tony and Bruce cannot just be convenient friends. This is how Iron Man 3 portrays them. Banner is actually in the movie – he appears in the after-credits scene listening to Tony Stark tell the events of Iron Man 3. He is the man for whom the whole narrative has been framed. So yeah, clearly they are still friends. And we all know that nobody actually wants their friends around when they’re in trouble… just after the fact, right? Yeah, doesn’t work.

But stupidly, thanks to the scope of Iron Man 3‘s plot, Banner isn’t the only noticeable absence. Iron Man 3 involves a terrorist targeting America, in particular America’s government institutions. The finale involves an attempt on the president’s life. They respond by turning War Machine into the Iron Patriot: essentially giving America a superhero. That’s great but – wait, doesn’t America already have a super hero?

Thanks to the plot setup in Iron Man 3, it falls to Captain America: the Winter Soldier to explain Cap’s absence. I don’t buy the whole “he’s still getting used to the future” defense. He already jumped at a chance to help in The Avengers. I have a really hard time believing that Captain America went into hiding after New York. It’s not in his character. He’s a soldier (like War Machine), his job is to defend his country. There’s a few other minor Phase Two problems but these were the two big ones. Now, remember when I said we would get back to the Mandarin?

I mean the actual Mandarin in the movie.

Yeah so Iron Man 3 splits up the Mandarin into two characters. One is Ben Kingsley’s Trevor Slattery: an actor who is hired to give the world a Mandarin they can more easily believe. This is actually really clever on one hand. For those of you out there who aren’t familiar with the Mandarin: he was basically created (initially) as a propaganda villain for those evil Asians in Vietnam (pretty racist when you think about it). So Iron Man 3 turned that part into pure propaganda. The Mandarin is real in the movie, he’s Aldrich Killian. Kingsley is used as a social commentary for the audience: look at how willing we are to believe that someone who looks like Osama bin Laden is an evil terrorist while nobody suspects the rich white guy. That is, on one level, really well played Iron Man 3.

Yet despite his racist beginnings, the Mandarin is a fairly rich comic book villain. In fact he’s Iron Man’s biggest villain. And thanks to Iron Man 3, we will never see him on the big screen. Yeah, we got a version but without any of the Mandarin’s actual powers (his ten magical rings – I know, magic rears its ugly head again in the Marvel universe). He was sacrificed for social commentary. This would not be so bad if there hadn’t been another person who had done this without sacrificing character integrity.

Modern day terrorist: check. Clown Prince of Crime: check. No sacrifice.

In the Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan effortlessly constructed villains the Joker and Two-Face into a social commentary on America’s war on terror. The movie was brilliant and is widely regarded, by many, to be the greatest superhero movie of all time. Then, in the Dark Knight Rises, Nolan transformed Bane into a haunted shadow of what Batman could have been – had he fallen. Why is that worth mentioning? Because Nolan did it without removing anything from what made Bane Bane. He understood the character enough to portray the essentials without the more problematic aspects (Bane has only been done once successfully in the comics, Knightfall; he is not an easy character to do). Point is: Christopher Nolan already did it. And he did it better.

All right, this is getting a little long and we haven’t even gotten into the Avengers 2 so I’ll wrap it up. Briefly let me say that I had problems with the film’s overly comedic tone. I’m fine with Tony Stark being snarky and spouting one-liners. That’s who he is, he handles his situations with humor. I can relate to that. However, there are one too many slapstick moments in the film involving other people where it takes away from scenes that otherwise would have been dramatic. Not every scene in a comedy needs a laugh – sometimes less is more. Okay, that’s out of the way.

Another thing: Tony Stark has a unique and strong voice and the movie captured it. Problem was it was contagious because every other character in that movie sounded like Tony Stark as well. Okay – that’s a script problem and on screenwriters Drew Pierce and Shane Black. Was it a huge deal: no. So let’s get to the last huge deal. Also the PTSD could have been handled a lot better (Tony has been in near-death experiences before so that should not have been the focus). Anyway, about that ending…

I'm not even going to get into how stupid this sequence was. All I can say is thank god for people like Joss Whedon who can portray women's strength without it becoming a laughable plot device. — I’m not even going to get into how stupid this sequence was. All I can say is thank god for people like Joss Whedon who can portray women’s strength without it becoming a laughable plot device.

Let’s talk about Tony Stark and what he does at the end. He removes the shrapnel in his heart, essentially curing him of the need to constantly carry his power source. WHAT. To be fair, this does happen in the comics. Also to be fair – I’ve never read the comics AND THIS MAKES NO SENSE WITH WHAT THE MOVIES WERE SAYING. Remember the plot of Iron Man 2? Remember that he was dying because he had that in him? Why didn’t he take it out then if all that was needed was a simple medical procedure? He had the money! Why did Iron Man 2 happen at all if the answer was so simple?

But that’s not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is that it completely undercuts the scene between Tony and Bruce in the Avengers. “This stops it. This little circle of light. It’s part of me now, not just armor. It’s a… terrible privilege.” That’s how Tony describes his condition to Bruce Banner. As part of him. More than just a suit. Tony can take off his armor but that light in his chest – and everything associated with how it came to be, is what makes him Iron Man. When Iron Man 3 has him just remove it at the end, they kill that Tony Stark. I’m sorry but I felt it was bizarre, completely unneeded and much too final for a character who will appear again… maybe. All I know is that the result of that scene made me closed to the idea of Iron Man 4.

There is still only one Batman and his movies are done now. Time to move on from Iron Man as well I think.

But anyway, what did I mean maybe? We’ll see Tony Stark again right? At least in the Avengers 2. Maybe. But it might not be Robert Downey Jr.

Avengers 2 tidbit:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/robert-downey-jr-has-marvel-by-the-balls-and-possibly-the-rest-of-the-avengers-behind-him-when-it-comes-to-negotiations-for-future-films. Here is an article that I read this morning and it speaks to what I was saying last week. The actors are moving on, they are leaving and while Joss Whedon is signed on for the Avengers 2, I really doubt that he will wish to return after that. Which is problematic since Marvel already has plans for Phase Three (Ant Man and Doctor Strange so far). My point is, it can’t continue. We’ve seen the heyday and now they’re stretching.

Iron Man 3 was an enjoyable summer movie but it was a poor Iron Man film. It gave me new appreciation for the Dark Knight Rises and the fact that Christopher Nolan was able to make a trilogy with a strong beginning, middle and end that never once failed the character of Batman. Iron Man was also a lot of fun back in 2008 but that’s five years ago. Tony Stark looks old under the armor. It’s time to retire him. The world of superheroes is coming to an end. It was a fun ride, but it is definitely over now. Phase Two is already showing that.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

End of a Cultural Era: Superhero Movies

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Colin McMahon

With this Friday’s impending release of Iron Man 3, I felt that now was a good time to reflect on a film genre that has dominated cinemas since 2000. For the past thirteen years no other group of films has generated the excitement, or more importantly the dollars, as well as superhero movies. Three of the top grossing films of all time are superhero movies from the past thirteen years (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Transformers: Dark of the Moon). Point is, the genre has been a juggernaut. Yet nothing gold can stay (except of course Ponyboy – weird reference, I know) and reflecting upon cultural trends, it is inevitable that superhero movies will fade from their height of popularity. I believe the process has already begun.

Let’s rewind the clocks to the year 2000 (that date still sounds futuristic). Director, Bryan Singer delighted audiences with his surprise hit X-Men. The film garnered a fairly favorable critical reception and went on to gross nearly 3oo million dollars at the box office. Not bad for a film that only cost 75 million to make. While audiences cheered and enjoyed themselves, Marvel Studios was watching. Turns out that X-Men was only the beginning: a trial run to test the waters and see whether or not there was an eager market for superhero movies. Turns out there was and since then we have been treated to 25 superhero films from Marvel alone (technically 20 but who’s counting Man-Thing?). Holy crap that’s a lot of superhero movies! Hope you’re still hungry cause there’s three more due out this year (still only counting Marvel films).

So here is the question: how many is too many? Answer: probably close to 25. The superhero genre has a formula that wears thin after repeated viewings. Stop me if you’ve seen this already: a flawed protagonist must overcome an internal struggle with himself (almost always a him). In doing this, he will find the strength to defeat a physical antagonist and save the woman/town/world from certain disaster. This story is nearly as old as recorded history. American mythologist Joseph Campbell actually wrote a book on this phenomena which expresses the ideas quite nicely:

Well worth a read to help understand the popular appeal of "the hero". — Well worth a read to help understand the popular appeal of “the hero”.

Point is: it’s a good story, people like it and its worked for thousands of years. So why don’t I think it will work anywhere? Several reasons. For starters, let’s go back one more time to X-Men. As I said before, that film only cost 75 million (I know right? just 75 million cause most of us I’m sure have that lost in our sofa cushions). While that amount staggers, it really is quite cheap for a blockbuster and is no longer the case for superhero movies. Want to guess at Iron Man 3‘s budget? A cool 200 million. And that’s not including the money spent on marketing and promotion. Wow these things cost money. Will they make it all back? Sure, this time.

When X-Men did really well at the box office, it was a nice surprise. Now, it’s a requirement. The Avengers (220 million), The Dark Knight Rises (230 million), Spider-Man 3 (258 million) – it’s a good thing these films were all blockbusters otherwise people would have lost their jobs.

The funniest face 258 million dollars can buy.

So if a superhero movie under performs financial expectations by even a slight margin: it’s a big deal. Has that already happened: yes. The Amazing Spider-Man took in just over 750 million worldwide. Impressive chunk of change even when you minus the 230 million it cost to make (I’m not sure how much was spent on advertising and promotion but probably at least another 50 million right there). So it still made money but it made less than any Spider-Man film that came before it. This could be blamed on one of two things: confusion at the reboot (a lot of people thought it was a sequel) and leftover bad taste from Spider-Man 3 (the most profitable Spider-Man film ever made by the way). I have a different theory, however.

To me, The Amazing Spider-Man represents the beginning of the end. It was a good film, at least I enjoyed it when I saw it in theaters last summer. The cast was good, it had great effects and cool action scenes. It was a superhero film… that’s it. That’s all I can say about it. There was no greater commentary present in that movie (I’m not saying there should be, it’s Spider-Man after all). But really, did I need to see it: no because I had 25 other options of that movie to watch, many of them (Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man 2) that did that formula better.

Now they’re making another one. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 comes out next summer. And I am completely unexcited for it. Might it be good: it very well might but do I really need to pay 20 bucks to see Spider-Man web-sling around and kick Jamie Foxx (who has been cast as Electro) in the face? No, not really. Electro is a boring character to me. I’ve already seen Spider-Man grapple with his best enemies. The only webhead related experience I would like to see at this point is a movie with Venom in it that, you know, doesn’t suck.

And that’s generally how I feel about most superhero movies. Yeah they’re good but are they all worth seeing? For instance why pay to see Thor: the Dark World, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: the Winter Soldier when I can just wait for the Avengers 2? They’re all going to be cool movies about guys in costumes fighting stuff but Avengers 2 will most likely be the coolest (really excited to see what Joss Whedon does here). They’re all good movies but they’re good superhero movies. Really out of all the films that have been released, there’s only been three that have transcended into great cinema:

Without a doubt the pinnacle of the cinematic superhero era.

Christopher Nolan brought levels to his Dark Knight trilogy that are not found in any other superhero movies. It is awesome that I can watch The Dark Knight as a batman movie AND as a commentary on George W. Bush’s war on terror (I will explain this more fully in another blog post if people would like). The Dark Knight Rises: cool fights between Batman and Bane and really close examinations of growing class inequality in America. Point is: there were more to these movies… and they’re done now. There will never be another Christopher Nolan Batman film. There will be more Batman – Warner Bros. has already announced plans to reboot the character but really? I think I just feel bad for the unfortunate director given that task. Even if he/she does a movie that’s as good as say The Amazing Spider-Man, it will be the worst Batman movie by far that we’ve had this millennium.

Warner Bros. is clearly trying to continue the momentum on in Man of Steel, I’ve already talked about that in an earlier blog post (http://redringsofredemption.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/marketing-method-man-of-steel/) but what if it doesn’t work? What if Man of Steel is nothing more than another good superhero movie? Zack Snyder is not a director of the same caliber as Christopher Nolan. Really, it would be nice to have a good Superman movie (there isn’t one yet in my opinion) but you know we won’t get just one. There will be at least three and then there’s also Justice League if that ever get’s out of development hell.

Directors aren’t the only ones leaving as well. Robert Downey Jr., arguably the strongest superhero actor presence out there, has spoken publicly about ending his role as Iron Man: “[Recasting] would probably be the best thing in the world for me. You know, ego…but sometimes ego just has to be smashed. Let’s see what happens. I take the audience very seriously – I feel bad when I see folks doing movies and the audience is like, ‘Don’t do that anymore.’ I don’t have to overstay my welcome…”

So while he is not walking away, he is expressing the eventuality of it. There will most likely be an Iron Man 4, Marvel has indicated as well… but will we pay for it? When will audiences grow tired of their heroes? The directors are already tired, the actors are getting there. My feeling is that audiences will not be far behind. It’s been a good ride and it will end in a crash. These films have been too popular to not be run into the ground. Do we need a Flash movie? Ready to pony over your dollars for 25 more films? I don’t think so.

Would you really be so excited if it was someone else in the suit?

Crazes come and go in Hollywood. Comic book superheros are a strong intellectual property full of rich stories that benefit from the cinematic experience – but there are other such materials waiting in the wings. My prediction for the next ten years: move over Iron Man, it’s Master Chief’s turn in the spotlight.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Oversaturation: First Reactions to Batman: Arkham Origins

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Colin McMahon

In 2009, then little known developer Rocksteady Studios released Batman: Arkham Asylum for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The game made a splash and for good reason. Not that there hadn’t been a Batman game before, there had – Batman Vengeance, Batman: Dark Tomorrow and Batman: Rise of the Sin Tzu just to name a few of Arkham Asylum‘s more direct predecessors. All these Batman games ranged in from mediocre to downright horrible. Batman: Arkham Asylum wasn’t the first good Batman game, it was the first great Batman game. For the first time, players really felt that they were inhabiting the role of the Dark Knight. Add the incredible voice talents of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill mixed with tight level design and an entertaining story by comic book guru Paul Dini and Batman: Arkham Asylum quickly became an essential for any video game fan.

Fast forward two years and we get the sequel. Batman: Arkham City was bigger than Arkham Asylum is nearly every way. More Batman characters, more cool locations, more excellent voice work. What would be Mark Hamill’s swan song as the Joker became an incredibly entertaining game and another excellent addition to the Batman video game universe. However, things were not as tight (video game wise) this time around. Remember fighting Deadshot and Hush in the game? I don’t. The design structure of the story lead very easily to whole sections being omitted on the first time around. Sure with more playthroughs, it’s easy to go in an find everyone but I have always wondered at this design decision. Why spend all that time making a game, crafting the characters with so much care – if your design will make it so easy to skip the entire experience? Don’t get me wrong: Arkham City is a great game but ultimately I feel that Arkham Asylum was a little tighter and better crafted in terms of delivering the complete experience the first time through.

This guy was in the game? Really? Where?

Anyway, we’re not here to talk about either Arkham Asylum or Arkham City, we’re here to talk about the recently announced Batman: Arkham Origins. I’m just going to come out and say it – I am not excited to play Batman: Arkham Origins. How can that be? I just said I consider Arkham Asylum and Arkham City to be wonderful games. Yes, that is true but think of the ending in Arkham City. Did that ending scream sequel?

Obviously with a name like Arkham Origins, we’re most likely going into prequel territory but still. Is it really necessary? Origin stories have been already done to death in Hollywood (did we really need to see Peter Parker get bit by a spider AGAIN in the Amazing Spider-Man) and I feel there is not much more wiggle room in video games. I don’t care about how the slums of Arkham City began, in all honesty I feel that having a city full of criminals as a solution to crime is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. The only reason I enjoyed Batman: Arkham City was for the rich narrative that Paul Dini wove into the place. As far as I know, he is not connected with Batman: Arkham Origins in any way and neither for that matter is Rocksteady Studios.

That’s right, it’s a different developer this time around. Warner Bros. Interactive is directly taking the reigns for this third Arkham installment. This doesn’t meant that we’re guaranteed an inferior product; Warner Bros. could very well do an excellent job with Arkham Origins. Yet it does beg the question – why not Rocksteady? Warner Bros. Interactive cannot be unhappy with the developer after two stellar (and profitable) Batman games. The answer is that Rocksteady is busy… busy making another Batman game. This untitled project will be set in the Silver Age of the Caped Crusader (silver age refers to a period in comic book development in the 1950s). That sounds pretty awesome – so wait, we’re getting two new Batman games? Oh by the way, that one doesn’t have Paul Dini either – http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/03/batman-arkham-city-wont-return-for-silver-age-prequel-rumour/.

Anyway – we’re getting two. One from Rocksteady and one from Warner Bros. Interactive. With no official announcement yet for the Rocksteady game, we can expect not to see it until next year at the earliest. Batman: Arkham Origins, however, is slated for release this year for the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii U video game consoles. With no announcement for the Playstation 4, we can assume that Arkham Origins will be created on largely the same technology as Arkham City – meaning one should not expect a huge leap in terms of visuals.

Also do not expect Mark Hamill to return as the iconic Joker. The voice actor made it very clear last time out that Arkham City would be his last appearance voicing the clown prince of crime.

Heath Ledger may be the face but Mark Hamill is the iconic voice of the Joker.

So we’re going to be missing a few things. Not that many Batman essentials will not return (players can expect to see Jim Gordon, Penguin and Black Mask in this new game) but again I question – do we need this? With Rocksteady Studios working on a new Batman game, do we need this to hold us over?

It seems the fate of big series to become prone to oversaturation. What do I mean by that? Simple: when a game sells well, the publishing studio naturally wants another one. The number of additional games usually reflects how large the series has become. Look no further than our yearly installments of Call of Duty, Halo and licensed sports games. Not to say these games are bad but did we really need Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops II in the last eight years? Not to mention the one that will inevitably be released this November? Are those games really that different from each other?

Here is my fear with this new Batman. With Arkham City, I felt that Rocksteady Studios was concluding the story they began in Arkham Asylum – they did a great job. With Batman: Arkham Origins, it honestly feels like a grab at our dollars before the release of Playstation 4 and whatever the next Xbox is called. Maybe I’m wrong, hopefully I am… but I rather doubt it. The AAA video game market is dominated by series and sequels. It seems like even the Dark Knight is not above the lure of another dollar. So I ask you – do you really need two more Batman games? Especially when the untitled Silver-Age Rocksteady game will most likely be exclusively for next generation consoles? Warner Bros. Interactive is betting you do. I believe they are willing to bet sixty dollars on it.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

PS – Many apologies for not posting anything on Monday. I am currently completing a University degree. However, since what I was working on for school is revelent to our media-oriented blog. I will include a link to my work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV7Dw13XK3I. Enjoy that.