Arrow is not the new Smallville (fortunately)

When I first heard about the show Arrow I immediately imagined it as a pseudo-spin off of the character who appeared in Smallville, which sucked. Both sucked. Smallville was a great opportunity to explore the origins of Superman but quickly degenerated in a poorly acted soap opera which took place in the same sets and between the same characters. Lana Lang was not red-haired, Pete Ross was Black, Martha Kent flirted with Lex's father, Lana slept with Lex, Chloe was hateful and the writers run out of absurd super heroic impersonations (the blur, the Matrix black suit...).

Throughout the episodes, the show introduced different heroes but Superman, such as an acceptable Aquaman, a childish thief as The Flash, Cyborg, a black Martian Manhunter, a Canadian Supergirl, a super powered Lana Lang and Green Arrow. Green Arrow was the one who appeared the most. During some seasons, it become a Green Arrow show with Clark Kent as a guest star. He even got the hot Lois Lane. I hate when they do this things, and it has not been the first time. In the three part episode World's Finest from Superman: the Animated Series, Bruce Wayne dated Lois Lane. They should treat with a little more respect the character of Lois Lane, instead of writing her as a total slut who eventually will end up with Superman. They never do it backwards, anyway. Why Superman or a young Clark Kent has never hooked up with Selina Kyle or Black Canary?

What I wanted to say is my expectations were to low when WB announced a Green Arrow show. They got even lower when I saw the advertisements with the green eye make-up. Seriously? That is going to be the mask? Is that enough to fool everyone? Is an action hero supposed to move always looking down with the chin inserted into his chest so that his head remains covered by his hood? That is the big plan to cover his identity? Is it forbidden to use a mask? Is the cheap make-up more realistic or nolanish?

Notwithstanding the above, a couple of months ago I started with the first season and I was glad to be completely wrong. First of all, the cast is quite good. Stephen Amell was a great choice, even too good. At first, I regretted WB did not cast him as The Flash or even Aquaman. I mean, I had never read a Green Arrow comic and barely knew the character, and I would have preferred him to interpret a more well-known hero. Now I am glad they are making a Green Arrow show because otherwise I would have never approached the character. It is still is a cheap version of Batman dressed in green and shooting arrows instead of batarangs, but it perfectly works for a tv show. The plots are not as simple or absurd as those from Smallville or other shows. The Lost-style flashbacks work perfectly to understand the transformation of Oliver Queen.

All this has really drawn my attention and now I am looking forward to broaden my knowledge on Green Arrows adventures. I will probably purchase some of the Neal Adams and Dennis O'Neil classic team-ups with Green Lantern and the trade paperbacks of The New 52's version of this character.

Acknowledging a failure (new Superman/Batman movie)

Superman v.s. Batman, Batman v.s. Superman, World's Finest... I would call it "acknowledging of Man of Steel's failure".

If Man of Steel had made a billion $, the sequel would not need Batman to ensure the box office. Man of Steel has been profitable but not enough to revamp the Superman franchise. We know the critics, the audience and the fans are -at least- divided. A lot of people did not enjoy Man of Steel and would hardly pay a ticket to watch the sequel.

But there are other reasons to skip another Superman solo movie. Since the Avengers hit the theaters, WB is obsessed with the JLA movie. They are in a hurry. By making a Superman/Batman movie, they want to reintroduce the Batman, develop the Superman character, leave some easter eggs concerning other potential members of the JLA and even a post-credits scene.

Why is this bad for Superman fans?

Because we are not in the 80's anymore and Batman is nowadays the most popular (and profitable) superhero of DC. This means there is a huge bat-fanbase that is going to pay their tickets to see this movie and want their Batman to be at least as cool as Superman. It is highly unlikely to see Batman playing a supporting role in a Superman movie. On the contrary, it is more probable that Batman's coolness and darkness eclipses Superman. Needless to say, if Bale took back the cowl, it would be a Batman movie (as Christopher Reeve/Michael Keaton would have been a Superman movie). Although this is unlike to happen, it is possible that a famous charismatic actor is cast as Bruce Wayne and overshadows Henry Cavill.

Aside the casting, we have reasons to be afraid of the story. We have heard the word "versus" in the hypothetic tittles. Furthermore, Snyder thought it would be a good idea to announce the movie reading a certain passage of Frank Miller's DKR. Why should fans of the more powerful superhero be afraid of a battle against a mere mortal human? Because we know they will follow the classic team-up scheme: they meet, they fight, a bigger threaten appears and defeats them, they team-up, they beat the bad guys, they become friends and realize it is useful to have allies. Because they would give Batman kryptonite or whatever he needs so that he can face Superman, as they have done in Hush, DKR and other comics.

One of the traditional interests of the World's Finest stories was to see the contrasts between the two heros. But that was when Batman was the darkness and Superman the light. Where would be the contrast now that Nolan/Goyer/Snyder batmanized Superman in the name of realism? The name "Superman & Batman: let's go snap some necks" comes to mind... Superman had a home and a happy childhood whereas Batman did not. Superman had clean methods while Batman was more expeditious. But now Superman is traumatized by Jonathan Kent. I am not referring to the absurd death but to the "hide, hide, don't do anything, let everybody die" lectures. Now Superman kills his enemies and destroys cities. Even his suit is dark. I believe the only way to have some contrast would be to get back the 60's Batman with the Batusi and the "holy bananas!".

Let's face it, Batman is human. He is a man in a costume. Everybody could become Batman, and that is the reason why we love him. He is really cool. It is easier to draw Batman, it is easier to write Batman, it is easier to identify yourself with him. It is much more difficult to draw Superman, to write Superman, to make a Superman movie, etc., but, if you succeed... it is magic...

The Amazing Spiderman 2

This afternoon I have seen the footage shown in the SDCC of The Amazing Spiderman.

I must say I am not and I have never been a Spiderman fan. When I was a child and comicbooks were sold at newsstands, I would only buy a Spiderman comic if there were no Superman or Batman left. I remember my elder cousin being really excited about some Secret Wars series back in the 80's where he got a brand new black suit. I also remember myself reading in the beach some paperback where I learn Peter Parker had a clone. The book included an issue in which the writers fooled around and drew themselves thinking how to end that saga. I also remember Todd McFarlane's spaghettish web-shooters.

My knowledge of the character comes from the 90's animated series. I watched and rewatched those episodes again and again but it was never my favorite character. There was something that did not reach me. That something was the complexity of the character. All the troubles he always had, always getting kicked by his enemies, mutating, etc. I felt Spiderman was not someone though enough. Venom was. I used to draw Venom kicking Spiderman's butt and that kind of stuff. I found Peter Parker had too may weaknesses to be his fan.

When I watched Rami's movies, the casting was a dealbreaker for me. Tobey Maguire was the worst choice to play a superhero. I know they wanted to play the nerd card so that the audience could empathize with him. I admit I am not a big fan of Kirsten Dunst work -or face. J. J. Jameson was brilliant, though. What I liked the most was the suit. They were so respectful... On the other hand, the Green Goblin looks like a Power Ranger cheap villain. I was reluctant to the idea of Spiderman biologically producing his own spiderwebs, but it almost does more sense than the brilliant devices engineered by a teenager.

What I wanted to say, the point I wanted to make in this first post is that I enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman a lot more than Sam Raimi's movies. I watched in the theater and I have just rewatched it now at home. Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spiderman and between Emma Stone and Kirsten Dunst... If they dare to kill Gwen Stacy, I am going to miss this girl. I just learned they cut the new MJ's footage for the sequel, the scenes filmed with the girl that appeared in George Cloney's hawaian movie. Well, I was saying I know Raimi's movies broke the box offices worldwide and were a huge success. I know The Amazing Spiderman has been criticized a lot. It has been said the reboot was unnecessary, but I do not think it would have been a good idea to continue with that franchise after watching Maguire become evil and dance evilly through New York's sidewalks...

It is true that lizard is not the greatest villain ever, the soundtrack is average, I am certain there are plot-holes and the other suit was much better. But Garfield plays a much better Spiderman, is a more believable teenager, there is action, cool spider-movements, high-school scenes and it is different from what we have already seen. They seem to have improved some things for the sequel. The new suit is both classic and modern and there will be more daylight action scenes. Why can't they do the same with Superman's reboot?