"I WANTED TO PORTRAY VERY, VERY DARK SUBJECT MATTER..."

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

Cont'd "...and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colors and simplest 

lines possible to leave the readers reeling"

Mark Milar

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

Again, I'm hardly on the cutting edge of culture, but since when as that ever stopped me having my say?

Don't worry, this is only a short article.

The man himself, Mark Millar.

Recently, off the back of us talking about the Captain America film of the same name, a good friend lent me the Marvel Civil War graphic novel. I read it, and as much as I enjoyed it (and I did enjoy it) something about it I found troubling. Not that it cost me any sleep, but in some way that's hard to explain I felt like there was something unpleasant starting me in the face. It got me to thinking about the book's writer, Mark Millar, whose work has had astounding influence over the modern comic industry, and whose works have inspired a number of blockbuster superhero films- including the soon to be released Logan, Kickass, Kingsman, and Wanted.

So here's the thing. While many writers and artists may have had a hand in bringing realistic sensibilities into mainstream comics (and I stress the distinction of mainstream), including the divisive Frank Miller and Alan Moore, it is Millar whose bought in the unease of contemporary American politics. That in itself isn't a problem, but unlike his peers, Millar seems less interested in exploring the issues he pulls into frame, or offering any sort of insight, than he is simply dredging some serious real-world issues, simply for the thrill of bringing his characters into conflict. 

I hear the make-up sex is fantastic.

Take Civil War as the prime example; it's a story born from the still glowing ashes of 9/11, yet it offers no real condemnation, it simply acts as a means for bringing heroes against heroes. It feels wrong to invoke something real like 9/11 simply as a plot device, and on top of that it paints it's major cast (with perhaps the exception of Spiderman) as pretty unsympathetic- everybody makes their own personal 'deal with the devil'. And, if indeed that was the point Millar was making, which I doubt, at best it's nihilistic and at its worse, ignorant. Hell, it's saying pretty much the same thing as Team America, except without anywhere near the satire or self-awareness.

I won't deny Millar has his finger on the pulse of what sells comics, and there can be no denying his writing is solid, but he reminds me of Quentin Tarantino's more recent output, in as much as I feel like he's simply serving up the darker underbelly of the world simply for the sake of giving it a damn good leer, rather than to expose any uncomfortable truths (watching the Hateful Eight is akin to watching a bucket filled with scorpions, waiting to see which order they sting each other in- there may be death, but you won't learn anything from it). Compare that to, say, Paul Verhovan, whose work is often hideously violent, but while Verhovan flirts with the notions of evil, and our society's obsession with sex and violence, you feel like he's always making a valid point. Tarantino (and Millar in same fashion) feel less like flirting with the insidious, and much more like a back street blowjob with it; and by way of that analogy, it left me feeling sordid. Sure, I'd had my fun reading Civil War, but afterwards I felt hollow, and after it was done I realised how much simply wasn't there; cheap thrills had taken the place of anything deeper or more rewarding.

Grisly, but is it more than its surface brutality?

There's an argument to be made that, if I'd followed the entire Civil War arc and spin-off comics, then perhaps I'd have been rewarded with some epiphany, that the greater subtext would make itself apparent, but I doubt it. I've read Kickass, and that was similarly grimy, while Kickass 2 was so leery and spiteful I sold both that and Kickass because I'd done with it. Sure, Maillar's bang-on with his dissection of a warped media-obsessed society, and the malicious under-culture of desensitized modern youths, but ever rape and child murder felt like a Daily Mail headline that offered no reward beyond the grim details, and it sat very jarringly with what I guessed was an attempt at humour. Conversely, both the Kickass and Civil War films offered far more than their comic source material. And, as if to solidify my every point, when asked if Mark Millar enjoyed Kickass on it's release, he answered flippantly “yeah, but they turned my comic into a chick-flick”.

In short; I'm glad Millar is out there somewhere writing comics. Without him, better writers would be less inspired. Millar's influential legacy will, in the fullness of time, be far greater than his own work, because what started with him will be taken on by people with far more to say about the world around them, than those who simply thrive on it's unpleasantness like crows on the dung heap.

Because that's what every comedic story needs; a rape scene.

"EVERY GAME HAS A WINNER AND A LOSER..."

Dick Jones (Robocop)

OK, as you should be able to tell by the pictures accompanying, this isn't a Robocop post, but it's an apt quote...

Looks more like a computer game graphic, right? But no, this is the MCU Spiderman. Official.

The internet has recently been set ablaze by the new MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) interpretation of their favorite son: Spiderman. The response has been overwhelmingly positive from what I can tell. I've been meaning to write about this since I heard the casting, but to be honest life's been a little bit hectic.

Months ago, Marvel announced Tom Holland as their replacement to Garfield in the role of Peter Parker / Spiderman. "Good choice" I thought, "it will make a nice change to have a character of genuine (or near as damn it) high-school age." And Holland looks the part as well; unassuming, a bit nerdy, and not the too-cool-for-school good looks of Garfield's Parker. Also, after the last two failures, I was actually glad to hear that MCU had cut a deal with Sony to get the character back on home turf. "If anyone can do that character justice, it's Marvel" I thought. After all, superhero films may be ten-a-penny these days, but even the worst of Marvel's output has generally stood head and shoulders over most other action films (and let's be honest, what's a superhero film if not an action movie where the hero wears a tight suit?). So, rather excitedly, I waited for the 'grand reveal'...

To get right to my point, I watched the new Captain America: Civil War trailer today. I'm not the biggest Avengers fan, but Civil War looks to be a cool film. Rather than the typical hero vs giant threat, Civil War turns hero against hero (before DC jumped on that particular bandwagon as well) and I'm confident it'll be one of Marvel's most dramatic and most exciting yet. But... To be absolutely frank- MCU's Spiderman is SHOCKINGLY AWFUL!

It gives me no joy to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. I grew up on Spiderman, and it never crossed my mind the MCU would botch this, but they really have dropped the ball. What we got was some of the worst CGI I've seen in  a major blockbuster for the last 5 years (perhaps even 10); little definition or texture, no weight or physicality. Sam Raimi's much criticised CGI in the first of his Spiderman films is by far superior.

On that note, where possible Raimi opted to use a 'guy in a suit'. Oddly, the MCU revealing final shots could easily have been enacted with a 'guy in a suit'- so not only is the CGI for MCU's Spiderman poor, but worst of all, also poorly employed! I hope the character won't be entirely rendered this way, but sadly this may be the case!

...And as seen in The Amazing Spiderman 2.

As for the design? It's the worst Spiderman's ever looked! I felt like, what with the MCU Spiderman essentially being bank-rolled and kitted out by Tony Stark, at least that nagging "how did he make a suit like that at home?" issue would be nicely sidestepped, but it's a hideous suit! It's so bland with an almost military aesthetic (the V design near the shoulder like a soldier's rank, the design of the pouches on the belt). That may be in keeping with the Avengers setting, but I dislike it immensely. But going back to "bland", compare the fine detail to characters like Ironman, Thor, Cap, Antman- their outfits are all beautifully textured and detailed; leathers, rubbers, belts, buckles, straps, padding, armor, etc. Spiderman's outfit is just, well, plain ol' spandex...

And the eyes? What the fuck is that all about? Animated eyes that change shape, used to employ expression as in the cartoons (and, more recently, the Deadpool film). I'm sure Stark will have fancy 'tech talk' as to why Spiderman's eyes do that, but it feels so at odds with the an aesthetic that leans towards realism whenever possible; Ironman, Thor, Cap- all of them have a faithful yet gritty re-imagining for the silver-screen. Spiderman, by comparison, looks like he was designed and rendered by a teenager in his bedroom. I was so underwhelmed on first seeing the outfit my first reaction was "must be another fake". Holy shit, it really is official. Whatever my complaints were about the Amazing Spiderman 2, I have to admit that was one hell of a suit! It's a poor start for the MCU Spiderman if my first overwhelming thought is "the Amazing Spiderman 2 design was better"...

Still, judge for yourselves, but for my money- a rare miss for the Marvel camp.

However, for every loser, as Dick Jones informs us, we must also have a winner.

Enter Ben Affleck's Batman.

It's like a goth version of the YMCA

I still insist his inclusion in a Superman crossover is a bad idea, but credit where it's due, Affleck really impressed me in the trailers (I imagine he's shut down many of the neigh-sayers by now), and his suit is a gorgeous bit of design reminiscent of the Frank Miller material. I've already said as much, but I really prefer this stripped-back look to the Nolan / Bale armored design. And the way he takes out the warehouse full of thugs in the final trailer? Well, it actually has me excited enough that I may risk a trip to the cinema for it. I hate to pat myself on the back (who am I kidding, of course I do), but if you reread some of my earlier posts concerning Batman, and what I wrote in the review to Oldboy, this really is a Batman like I said it should be done...

Nolan's Batman was so armored that he looked like a Goth take on Ironman...

On a final note, when the Hell did Batman Vs Superman Dawn of Justice become a film with Aquaman and Wonder Woman in it? The absurdity is mounting. My concern is this, the MCU pulled of its cross-over by sheer force of spectacle, novelty-value and a healthy dose of good humor. Also, every main character was given their own lead-in movie... Comparatively, the DC cinematic universe (DCCU?) is doing the whole 'muture thing' (read: dark and sulky), takes itself waaaaaay too seriously, and is piling in at least 4 big characters alongside Superman before any of them have their own film to shine. Pulling off an 'Avengers Assemble' with a cast full of scowls is probably going to be unintentionally hilarious, but unlikely the effect which DC will be hoping for, and the whole project has a whiff of jealous desperation about it.

To my mind, in both the comic world as well as the cinematic one, DC has always been the stiffer entity, muddling along in the footsteps of it's more lively and energetic rival, and I say that as a big Batman fan (although I can take or leave most of the other DC characters). The crossovers worked for Marvel (worked very well, actually), and now DC wants to prove that it can have the same success... And I always thought the green eyed monster was supposed to be the Hulk?

Anyway, we will have wait and see, won't we?

At the end of this round: Spiderman 0, Batman 1.