Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marvel. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Captain. Freaking. Marvel.

I've never been a big comics fan. I had a small collection of Archie comics (she said as she was binge-watching Riverdale -- I was totally Team Betty and harbored a deep irrational resentment for Veronica -- I'm glad that rivalry isn't a thing on the show) but they were mostly just random issues my mom bought me at the grocery store.

Aside from that...I watched Dean Cain and Terri Hatcher in The Adventures of Superman and I watched Smallville back when The WB was a thing. But Superman and Batman...they exist in pop culture in a way thats transcends comic books. You don't need to have picked up a single comic book to know about the moral compass of the Man of Steel or the tortured background of Gotham's Dark Knight. (Although I did love the cheesiness of the 1960s Batman series; I'd watch it with my parents on Nick at Nite.)

All of that to say -- I was never a big comics fan. And when an ex was Fanboying over the first Iron Man movie, I rolled my eyes and wasn't convinced that Robert Downey Jr could convincingly portray a hero let alone carry a franchise. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. Past Lisa was kinda dumb in that regard. She also refused to watch the first Thor movie with Chris Hemsworth and was in love with a guy who is an ex for obvious reason. Hindsight.)

But then The Avengers came out while my husband and I were dating, and my husband was a fan and was appalled that I had never seen them. (Honestly, between that fact and the fact that I had never seen the Star Wars movies, I'm surprised he put up with me. 😂) Aaaaand I was hooked. Kevin Feige hasn't had a miss yet and the new spate of DC movies are...soul-suckingly bad. Except Wonder Woman. She is kick-ass and amazing and everything I could want in a female superhero. It bothered me that the MCU, a stronger franchise in almost every other way, couldn't compete. (Don't even get me started on Black Widow.)

Until now.




I know there's a lot that I don't fully understand -- things about Kree and Skrulls and Ronan and Captain Marvel's backstory -- and obviously the thing I want the most (to know how in the world she's going to fix everything that happened in Infinity War) isn't going to be in the trailer, but I'm still super excited. Brie Larson looks amazing. 

Monday, February 26, 2018

The Power of _Black Panther_

A few days ago, I posted about my response to Marvel's Black Panther. In it, I embedded this tweet from Josh Gad:

I realize that Josh Gad was talking in terms of a cinematic revolution -- after all, the comparisons he draws are cinematic ones. The implication of it, of course, is that Black Panther -- and its attendant success -- will signal a new shift in cinema, perhaps marking the day when Hollywood (executives) realize that a movie like Black Panther -- an all-black cast, with a black director, and representation of African culture -- can return a blockbuster investment.

But what Josh Gad's tweet doesn't explicitly address, but what he alludes to, is that Black Panther isn't just a cinematic event, it's a cultural cinematic event -- that the ramifications extend far beyond Hollywood.

Case in point:

Story via The AV Club
Y'all.

That is a powerful statement of the impact.

And sure, the AV Club gets a little snarky with their comment about there being "only so many disappointing Toy Story-themed Disney World attractions you can blow your money on at one time" -- which isn't entirely fair, since as much as I hate when Disney "kills" my favorite old-school rides, part of the success of Disney theme parks is how they continue to evolve, but I digress -- but the story is there.

A cinematic cultural event, indeed.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Just Because Something Works...

...doesn't mean it can't be improved.

BRB--Printing this off to hang up in my office. I mean, it's applicable to writing and revision, right? Just because you write a first draft and it works doesn't mean it can't be better.


Monday, February 19, 2018

GO SEE BLACK PANTHER.

I'm not usually one for Teh Capslock, but in this case, I feel like it's warranted: go see Black Panther

This weekend, my husband and I visited my in-laws up at Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia. It's a bit of a touristy spot in the Blue Ridge Mountains of rural Southwestern Virginia, so it's nice and quiet in February. My mother-in-law loves quality time with her grandbabies, so we were able to sneak away for a few hours in the afternoon to see Black Panther at a local cinema -- where it was not difficult to get tickets. We walked up about 20 minutes before an afternoon showing and had walked right in. There were...maybe 20 people in the theater?

But it was fascinating -- it was wonderful -- to overhear the conversations of the people sitting around us. There was an African-American couple sitting a few seats down from us who frankly admitted that they didn't know anything about comic book characters or the other Marvel movies -- but they'd been to see this movie Friday night, were here again on Saturday afternoon, and couldn't wait to take their grandbabies on Sunday after church.

That's the power of this movie, y'all.


I'm going to try and post non-spoilery thoughts, because this is a movie that shouldn't be spoiled.

Monday, July 17, 2017

D23 Expo Recap

io9 has posted a great recap of all the news from the D23 Expo with links to each individual story. They've also helpfully divided it up into 3 major categories: Marvel, Star Wars, and "Disney" (which I guess is just an umbrella category).

Check out the link to get more information.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

R. I. P. Tower of Terror -- You Can't Compete With The Power of Cross-Promotion

One of my favorite memories of our honeymoon at Disneyland was when my husband and I rode the Tower of Terror. It's my favorite ride in all of Orlando (I think it's my husband's second favorite? "Escape From Gringotts" at Diagon Alley in Universal might be his new top pick...) and there was no way we weren't going to ride it.

Like many rides in Disneyland, Tower of Terror is just different enough to keep you on your toes. The first time we rode it, we didn't know that of course -- we assumed the ride itself would be just the same. NOPE.

We were sitting in the front row, just hanging out, when the doors open.
In Orlando, you move forward -- to the front of the ride and it's all dark with sparkly stars. THEN the drops start.
In Anaheim...everyone behind and around us was fidgeting and giggling and we were all, "Um, guys? Chill. We've still got a few seconds here."
And then we dropped.
And we screamed.
And then we laughed because OF COURSE they knew better than we did, but it was almost better that way because it was a new ride experience for us and that was awesome.

Great anecdote, Lisa -- but what does this trip down memory lane have to do with anything? 

ComicCon was this weekend -- a BFD in the world of pop-culture for all the trailers that drop, panels that are convened, and exclusive information that's released. Much of the Disney related news (a new Doctor Strange trailer, Brie Larson as Captain Marvel, Once Upon A Time's foray in Agrabah) isn't really relevant to my thoughts here (maybe the OUaT news). What is of interest, though, is this news about Disneyland Park:

via D23

The iconic Hollywood Tower Hotel -- a.k.a. the Tower of Terror ride -- isn't going to be the Hollywood Tower Hotel anymore.

Nope. Instead, it's going to be "Guardians of the Glaxy Mission: Breakout!" or some such nonsense.

Look. I get it. Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success for Disney -- given the fact that it starred a talking raccoon and a tree -- proving that films outside of The Avengers franchise were worth the investment. I also get that they're looking at this as part of a new expansion to California Adventure, like Marvel-land or whatever. Which...cool. Awesome. You want to expand, Disney Imagineers? I believe you're up to the challenge. (My map-obsessed-husband says you have the space to expand, so I'll believe him.)

But, to me, that is simply not enough to warrant taking a successful attraction and imposing a new narrative on an existing ride track (I assume) just to benefit from some cross-promotion (Guardians 2 will hit theaters in May of 2017, after all) and merchandizing (but will you be able to buy any Gamora merchandise?)
Maybe if the ride/attraction was struggling, it'd be a different story.
Maybe if it was a temporary overlay, like the Star Wars' themed HyperSpace Mountain at Disneyland, it'd be a different story.

As one of my friends pointed out on Facebook:
"What bothers me is that they are stripping away what makes going to the parks a unique and different experience than the movies. As a kid I wanted to go to Disney because it was something I couldn't get from the movies or tv network. They had rides and attractions that you could only get there. Tower of Terror was one of those rides I remember opening and being excited because I had to go there to experience it. I find some of the new rides like The Little Mermaid, Nemo, and probably Frozen annoying because it's just the movie. I've seen your films, give me something different."
Eloquently, and succinctly put. It's exactly what bothered me about replacing Maelstrom with the Frozen ride -- especially since the ride itself doesn't wow me. It's not the movie, but it's nothing overwhelmingly unique and special either. Like my friend, I'm disappointed with Nemo whenever I ride it (that's it? really? the line to the ride is more engaging) and I think I only enjoy the Little Mermaid ride so much because I love the music and the movie. While it's true that some of the "classic," older rides at the Disney Parks are basically "just the movie," there's still something unique about them -- or maybe that's the nostalgia talking. Take "Peter Pan's Flight" for instance: that basically just recaps the highlights of the film...but you're on board a "flying" boat. 

But when a ride outlives its attraction-potential, it simply gets rebooted. (Why are we all about the reboots these days?!) "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" became "Winnie The Pooh." "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" became "Finding Nemo" at Disneyland and New Fantasyland in the Magic Kindgom. Maelstrom became the Frozen ride. I can't attest to the first two--but Maelstrom was still popular (or, at least, popular enough for EPCOT; not nearly as popular as Frozen is, that's for sure). And so was Tower of Terror. 

We're already planning our next (tentative) trip to Disneyland -- it might be before, but we definitely want to go for the 75th Anniversary: our daughter will be 14 then and it hurts my heart to think that we'll ride this Guardians ride and explain that, once upon a time, it was the Tower of Terror ride which she knows and (hopefully!) loves in Orlando. 

Please don't take away my Tower of Terror in MGM, Disney. I'm not sure even my loyalty will stretch that far. 

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Why Elsa Shouldn't Have A Girlfriend


Trending Hashtag Right Now: #GiveElsaAGirlfriend 

Also trending: #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend. (Clearly this was before Marvel revealed that the comic book world's Golden Boy was a sleeper agent for the Nazis Hydra. Or maybe that doesn't matter.)

This may be a controversial thing to say but...I don't support either of these campaigns.

Now, let me clarify this: I'm definitely not saying I don't support LGBTQ+ rights. I'm definitely not saying I don't want to see a homosexual relationship in a Disney film. I'm definitely not saying I don't want to see a homosexual character in a Disney film.

I am saying that I just don't think that either Elsa or Captain America is that character

A little bit of background:

This all started when Twitter user lexi4prez tweeted this out:


According to her own essay on MTV,  the motivation for her Tweets is 100% valid. She starts her essay, for instance, by noting what she doesn't/hasn't seen:
"Growing up, I never saw a princess fall in love with another princess — and neither have girls growing up right now. The entertainment industry has given us girls who have fallen in love with beasts, ogres who fall for humans, and even grown women who love bees. But we’ve never been able to see the purity in a queer relationship."
The lack of homosexual characters in children's media isn't a new issue -- or an inaccurate one -- in children's media scholarship. Critics have pointed out that children's media in particular focuses on heterosexual relationships, with the traditional "happily ever after" usually being a marriage between a man and a woman. And Disney, as one of the giants in children's media. is often lambasted for its lack of diversity in many ways, not just with regards to homosexual characters.

SIDEBAR: As influential as Disney can be, it can be fairly reluctant to take a step that would anger its middle-class fanbase: it won't take a step in a progressive direction unless it knows it won't financially hurt them. That is, while there hasn't been a homosexual character in an animated film, the company is by no means anti-LGBT. The Disney Channel show Good Luck, Charlie featured a lesbian couple; the ABC show Once Upon A Time has the bisexual Mulan (and Ruby); and the fact that Disney World has specifically designated LGBT friendly days (Gay Days, usually in early June) has angered more than a few conservative groups. But feature-length animated films are the company's bread-and-butter, and they're going to be extra cautious.

And she concludes with an equally valid point:
"Giving young girls the chance to understand that a princess can love another princess the same way Cinderella loved her Prince Charming is vital to their development. No one deserves to feel isolated and confused about who they are. All we need is someone to show us that there are other options, other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve."
Yes, "no one deserves to feel isolated and confused about who they are." And, yes, it is important to show girls "that there are other options, other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve." I agree with this 100%.

But this is also where I start to disagree. Because while I agree that Disney needs be more diverse, needs to have a homosexual character and, one day, needs to show a homosexual relationship, I really don't believe that Elsa is that character, nor should she be.

Earlier in the easy, Alexis Isabel makes this statement:
"Yet Elsa, the film’s protagonist, will probably end up with a male prince or king in the upcoming Frozen sequel."
I understand where this concern comes from: every single Disney Animation Studios Princess before Elsa has ended up with a man in some way. I'm excluding Merida since she has the (more progressive) Pixar behind her story.
[SIDEBAR: It's interesting to note that only four Disney princesses actually get married (in the film itself, not in sequels or shorts): Cinderella, Ariel, Rapunzel, and Tiana -- and Flynn Rider only tells us that he and Rapunzel get married in the "epilogue" of the film. Snow White, Aurora, Belle, and Jasmine are merely shown with their princes at the ends of their films, usually dancing off screen with them. Pocahontas, of course, ends up alone; and Mulan merely invites Shang to dinner.]

So I get it. The temptation to pair Elsa with a man is there -- although I sincerely hope that Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee developed a better story than that. And I'd be lying if I didn't think the Internet's obsession with shipping Elsa & Jack Frost (from Rise of the Guardians) isn't absolutely adorable and perfect. I even own a TeeTurtle shirt with them building a snowman together.

But that doesn't mean I want to see them end up together in a Frozen sequel.

And here's why: there was nothing -- and I'm not counting the lyrics of "Let It Go," since the power of that song comes from the myriad of situations it can be applied to -- in the original film that implied or even hinted at Elsa's sexuality.

And that was the brilliance of it.

Because, again, yes. It's important to have a homosexual character in a Disney animated film -- but only if it is true to the character and the story.

Yes, it is important to have "other kinds of princesses, and other ways to have the happy ending that you deserve." But the emphasis here is on "kinds" -- plural. Not just another "kind" of princess -- singular. There are other options besides a straight princess in a heterosexual relationship and a gay princess in a homosexual relationship. There can, for instance, be a princess queen who is "enough" on her own -- who is strong and independent and resourceful.

I'm not saying she needs to be completely isolated -- that is, after all, the point of the first movie.  We need other people in our lives, our friends and family.

But for me, one of the most progressive aspects of the original film was that Elsa didn't need to be married to rule her country. There was no annoying subplot where she had to be married in order to become queen. (Which is, unfortunately, the plot of The Princess Diaries 2, itself a Disney princess film. Mia can't rule Genovia without being married. And while, in the end, she does give a powerful speech extolling the virtues of female rulers, and the law is overturned, it's still the plot of the movie.) Here, in Frozen, it's not even an issue, it's not even mentioned: the King and Queen of Arendelle die, Elsa turns 21, she's crowned as queen. There's no meeting of Parliament to decide whether she should take the crown; when she spazzes out and unleashes an eternal winter, no one mentions her gender (they mention her "evil magical powers," but that's completely unconnected to gender); and no one says anything about how a man would have been a better ruler. After all, the male authority figures in the film are largely ineffectual (excluding Grandpabbie, as he's a troll): the King of Arendelle is in the running for Worst Parental Advice Ever (when he tells Elsa to suppress her true self); the Duke of Weselton is an ineffectual dignitary with a Napoleon complex; and Hans...well, Hans seems like he could have been a good ruler (he did take care of the people when Anna was searching for Elsa), but he's too power-hungry and narcissistic to really rule well. (Plus, he's the villain.)

This is just as important a message, just as important an image, for little girls (and boys!) watching Frozen to see. You don't need to be in a relationship to be successful: you are capable of great things on your own. Yes, you need friends and family to keep you grounded, but a relationship isn't the only way to define happiness.

So while a gay Disney princess would be great, I still don't think it should be Elsa. Let Elsa rule Arendelle as a strong, empowered monarch and leave the romantic subplot out of it. The first truly gay Disney princess should be a character worthy of that storyline.

[SIDEBAR: All of this applies to Captain America, too. I get it. He and Bucky have an awesome bromance fraught with tension that people love to read stuff into. BUT. Cap loved Peggy Carter. That's like a big point of this most recent film: he goes to London for her funeral (because he loved her), and it's Sharon's recollections of her aunt's advice that cause Cap to not join with Tony Stark and whatever UN accords they're agreeing to. (Again, because Cap loved Peggy. And may or may not have had a thing with Black Widow. And may or may not have a thing with Sharon Carter, because that's not weird at all.) So, yes: it wouldn't be true to his character or his storyline. At least not in the Marvel movies; the comics have shown that Cap's identity and character are apparently pretty fluid, so, yeah.]