With Great Writing Comes Great Accolades

When a work of fiction becomes so big, or when a fictional character becomes so popular, an institution is surely created. However, the bigger a work becomes, the more hands work to its completion, and sometimes this can sully the final product. In most cases, the biggest fans suffer when their favorite story, or their favorite character, becomes what it was not intended to be. Too much of this can breed contempt for any new editions of that particular work.

I had this feeling when I found out that The Kids' WB on the CW would be presenting a new animated Saturday morning cartoon based on my favorite web-slinging superhero: The Spectacular Spider-Man. I feared that the show would be heavy with rushed plots and quicker solutions. I dreaded that the show would be written around cool gadgets that would easily be transferred into expensive toys. I was sickened at the thought that Spider-Man, who is the second best character in comics, would be poorly and shallowly written and developed.

My fears were wiped away after the first 3o minutes of the first episode. It was a masterpiece.

Some of you are thinking: Did he just use the word "masterpiece" in reference to a cartoon? You heard correctly. In fact, there have been many masterpieces in the history of cartoons, and especially comic books. I consider the Simpsons a masterpiece of dark, satirical humor that has stood the test of time (1989, folks - that was when the Simpsons debuted as a prime-time cartoon). Some consider the racy sci-fi/fantasy animated movie Heavy Metal as a masterpiece of sex, violence, and rock and roll. And, like them or not, Walt Disney Animation Studios have produced some of the most loved cartoons of all time (personally, I love Disney cartoons).

What about comic books? Surely, they can't be "masterpieces"? Alan Moore's epic Watchmen comic book limited series won a Hugo Award (the yearly award for the best science-fiction and fantasy works), and it was listed in Time Magazine's 2005 "100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present".

In the realm of characters, cartoon or comic book, Spider-Man is truly a great character. Whether or not Spider-Man could be considered a "masterpiece", the work that has been done with that character since his 1962 debut in the pages of Amazing Fantasy has been masterful. When Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created Spider-Man, they crafted a unique and interesting hero who brought excitement and action to the pages of whatever comic book he appeared in. But Spider-Man's best attribute was not his ability to spin webs and crawl on walls; his best attribute was his alter-ego: Peter Parker. In my opinion, Peter Parker, the ultimate loser who has fantastic abilities but can't catch an even break, is the greatest character in comics, yesterday, today, and for the foreseeable future.

Because I love the character of Peter Parker so much, I was a little leery about the new animated series. Animated series and other works, such as movies, have been sometimes based on product sales rather than quality. Take Pokemon, for example: that is a cartoon based on a card game. New characters mean new cards to sell to the kids. New seasons mean new card series to sell. Nothing is done for quality, but just to make a sale. But The Spectacular Spider-Man is not like that. Quality comes first, and anything after that is a compliment.

The series begins with Peter Parker returning to high school in his junior year. How did he spend his summer vacation? He became Spider-Man. There is no origin show to bog us down at the beginning; the writers jump into action, hopefully because the Spider-Man origin tale has been told so many times that family pets now recite the tale. The first few episodes have the feel of an inexperienced Spider-Man getting used to his life as a crime fighter / high school student, but not so inexperienced that we have to suffer through "power discovery". The villains have roots in organized crime, and they deal with Spider-Man as an unknown entity. Because of that, the first few stories revolve around the creation of villains due to criminal relations between the crime boss known as the "Big Man" and industrialist Norman Osborne. Of course, thanks to the quality of the writing, the stories really revolve around a teenager named Peter Parker, who happens to be Spider-Man.

That is very important. This isn't a cartoon about Spider-Man fighting villains. That happens, of course. It has to. But the main focus is Peter Parker, the man, not Spider-man, the superhero. There's the secret, true believers. If you ever want to create a superhero, do the following: create the person, first, then create the superhero. The person (the alter-ego) is the most important part of any good superhero.

But The Spectacular Spider-Man does more than honor the greatest character in comics. The writers treat the long history of Spider-Man with respect, and they do it justice. No villains or origins are rushed. Several villains are introduced many episodes before they actually become villains, like the Lizard and Sandman and Dr. Octopus and the Green Goblin. The villainous Venom, which is the reason behind Spider-man's black "costume", is introduced in the first episode and doesn't come into being until the thirteenth! These writers aren't writing a Saturday morning cartoon show! They are sculpting art!

And speaking of art, the animation, though considered a bit childish and goofy for some (this guy not included), is fantastic! The art staff handles all the problems the other Spider-Man cartoons have suffered from in the past. Spider-Man (1967-1970) was known for poor backgrounds, panned paintings, and reused animation. Spider-Man (1981), Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (1981-1983), and Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994-1998) all featured poor animation, poor writing, and convoluted continuity. The art in The Spectacular Spider-Man is all animation, and it is fresh and flowing. The fight scenes are the best I have ever seen in a cartoon. Period. Most of the time, the city looks like New York City, though other times, it is less distinct and looks like a major cartoon city. Although a purist would argue that the continuity is not the same as the comic book, I would argue that The Spectacular Spider-Man has the continuity that is closest to the spirit of the Spider-Man comic books.

Should your kids watch this show? Sure. The younger ones might be scared a little bit at times, especially during the Alien Symbiote / Venom story, but it is not too bad. The lessons are good, for the older kiddies. The story of Spider-Man is, in a sense, a morality tale: "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility..."

To the staff and producers of The Spectacular Spider-Man: Keep up the good work! This is one of the best shows on television, and the best cartoon I have ever watched (with the Venture Brothers a close second). I hope this series has a run that buries the runs of the other Spider-Man series.

And, if you ever need someone to voice Kraven, or Carrion, or Jack O' Lantern, give me a ring. It would be a dream-come-true.

(Heck, I'd even voice Frog-Man.)

(Cover of the December 1976 debut issue of Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man).

What’s Your Favorite Movie?

Common question, and for as long as I can remember my response has been Raiders of the Lost Ark .The next two films in the series definitely make my all time top ten. Despite this (or maybe because of this), I reacted with dread to the news of a fourth installment. The trilogy was, to me, a complete story. When we last saw Indy, he was riding off into the sunset, having discovered the Holy Grail itself (which is synonymous with “no bigger artifact available”). And aside from all of that, to quote the new film –how old is Harrison Ford now? Like 80?

I shouldn’t have worried. While Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull isn’t of the same caliber as the original movies, it’s a nice epilogue to the series, and entertaining.
Spielberg and Ford don’t try to hide the characters age, but embrace it. Throughout the film, Ford appears to be channeling Henry Jones senior (as portrayed by Sean Connery in The Last Crusade). The introduction of Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) is the one of the saving graces of the script– not so much due to that character but the foil he provides for the aging Indy.

The film has many flaws, chief of which is the determination to make it as true to the era it’s set in- the 1950’s – as the previous films were with the 1930’s. The pulp serials that inspired Raiders were full of guns, magic and Nazis. The 1950’s still had the guns, but Commies had replaced Nazis, and magic was replaced by flying saucers, aliens and atomic bombs.

Favorite scene: The opening. The thing that separates Indiana Jones from so many others in the action pantheon is that he is not a hero because he can smash a hundred bad guys with his bare hands; it’s the way that he never gives up, taking beating after beating. So it’s fitting somehow that he returns to the big screen by being thrown unceremoniously to the ground.

Worst scene: The G-men accusing Indy of being a communist. This seems to be nothing more than a device to fill the viewer in on what Jones has been up to since the 30’s, and another “Hey! It’s the 50’s! Red Scare!” moment that has nothing to do with the plot. It doesn’t go anywhere.

Kids movie? Nope, too much violence (though I saw Raiders when I was 8 and it didn’t do me any harm. Well not much. Actually, don’t bring any kids under 13).

Date movie? Yeah, as long as your date likes good movies.

If you like this, check out: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, another tribute to genres of old.

-- Necronomisean

Iron Man

As a comic book fan, I was a little nervous about the new Marvel production, Iron Man. I mean, Spider-Man 3 was poor (too many villains and a bad plot), Ghost Rider was weak, and I heard rumors that Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer and X-Men: The Last Stand were very, very bad (which is why I stayed away from them). And Elektra? Woof! To be fair, the first movies in those particular franchises were excellent (Ghost Rider excluded). And this movie, Iron Man, is the first movie in what I hope to be a successful and long running franchise.

Iron Man was an outstanding example of Marvel Comics' ability to create a fantastic superhero movie. It had everything that a fan could want: great characters, great character interaction, superhero action, alter ego character development, great special effects, funny lines, solid plot, and the hope of a sequel(s). I could not ask for anything more.

More importantly, Iron Man had everything that a non-fan could want: great characters, great plot, easy origin explanation, explosive action, funny lines, and hot babes (Gwyneth Paltrow was super hot ... and she should really consider keeping her hair red). Why is it more important, in my book, to keep the non-fans happy? Because there are more non-fans than there are fans, and those non-fans are out significant others and our friends: the more they enjoy comic book movies, the happier we fans will be.

Let's talk about casting, shall we? Perfect. Having Robert Downey Jr. play the role of Tony Stark was a stroke of genius. He was perfect in that role, better, even, than Toby Maguire, who was the best Peter Parker to date. Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect in the role of Pepper Potts, lending her topnotch acting skills and her heavenly appearance to the part. Terrence Howard was perfect as James "Rhodey" Rhodes. He was a very deep and well played out character (I loved the private jet scene that was the drunken "I love you, man" episode that is common between modern day male friends who drink a lot). And Jeff Bridges was perfect as the opportunistic and heartless Obadiah Stane, who becomes the super-villain Iron Monger (He looks good bald; very distinguished; although, I'm a big fan of Bridges as the Dude from the Big Lebowski).

Kids movie? I would say no. There is a lot of violence in this movie. People are shot and killed a lot, especially in the beginning. There are a lot of intense moments that could scare younger viewers.

Date movie? I would say yes. There is nothing that would embarrass a dating couple, and the movie is sprinkled with good laughs to keep things light.

I give Iron Man ten rings of the Mandarin out of ten.

(Below is the first Iron Man comic book I ever bought, The Invincible Iron Man #104 from 1977...)

Doomsday

Did you like Escape From New York? Did you like The Road Warrior? If the answer to either of these questions is 'Yes', then you will like Doomsday.

Doomsday is the third full length feature from British writer / director Neil Marshall. His previous two movies, Dog Soldiers (2002) and The Descent (2005) were both excellent examples of horror / action. The Descent is one of my favorite horror movies. (When you scare the moviegoer with claustrophobia and lygophobia way before you even introduce the monsters, you got it going on.) Doomsday differs in the respect that it is more of a sci-fi / action movie, than a horror / action.

The plot of Doomsday is fairly simple. In the near future, a highly contagious flesh eating virus breaks out in Scotland. Great Britain's answer to the plague is to seal Scotland off from the rest of the world. The rest of the world answers by shutting off Great Britain from all aid and commerce, due to the barbaric way that the government deals with the infected. Years later, as London, and most of England, wallows in poverty following a population explosion, the flesh eating virus breaks out in one of London's overcrowded slums. The government decided to send a team of commandos and scientists into the now dead land of Scotland, hoping to find a cure in possible survivors. Things turn for the worse when the government's info isn't as good as they think, and the commandos find Glasgow, Scotland ruled by savage, cannibal punks. And it is up to tough-as-nails and hot-as-hell Major Eden Sinclair (played by tough-as-nails and hot-as-hell Rhona Mitra) to lead the survivors of the ill-fated mission out of the whirlwind of terror.

Rhona Mitra is smoking hot. There. I've said it.

She is beautiful and athletic, unlike certain 'resident' action heroines who are disgustingly skinny. She handles the role well, not taking herself too seriously. Her character is very tough, but not indestructible. And her character is very smart (not the use of her 'camera' to record certain events to 'cover her ass'). And Mitra's Eden Sinclair reminds me of a female 'John McClane': she handles outrageous situations with grace and a bit of tombstone humor, when needed.

Is this a kids movie? Absolutely not. If you take your kids to see Doomsday, you are part of the problem with society. There is a lot of violence and there is a lot of gore. Almost too much, at times. For example, a guy gets cooked and eaten on camera. That reason enough for you?

Is this a date movie? No. See above. The sheer horror that befalls people in this movie outweighs anything that might benefit a dating experience. It will be too uncomfortable in mixed company or with people you are not familiar with.

I loved Doomsday. It totally rocked. Was it outrageous? Yes. But it was fun and exciting and Rhona Mitra was smoking hot. I give Doomsday six severed heads out of six.