Random Thought: I really hate Rent

Musicals are really tricky things. Sure there are some good ones. A lot of good ones. Some phenomenal ones actually. Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Book of Mormon, more recently Hamilton, Sweeney Todd and my personal favorite, Wicked. On the other end, there are some musicals that don’t work as well. Grease, Young Frankenstein, and today’s entry, Rent. With all of these musicals, I’ve noticed one common theme amongst those that were good, and those that sucked. The ones that were really good, already had an existing story, a ground to build off of. Since Les Mis and Wicked were already stories to begin with, they just needed to translate it to the stage. And so the songs were written to advance the story and develop the characters. Same goes for Hamilton. So that’s why in a lot of cases the songs by themselves come off as alright, but when you actually know the context that the song is taking place in, then it just makes the song so much better. The best example I can think of is someone who I follow on facebook said that they listened to the soundtrack to Wicked years ago, thought it was alright, and didn’t really come back to it. Years later, he saw the show, came home, and tore up his house trying to find the soundtrack. A little context goes a long way. The story helped give meaning to the songs, and the songs helped intensify the emotions of the scene. Each worked for the other, improving the quality of the other, and benefiting as a result. Thus we have an audience that is more invested.

                The same cannot really be said for a musical such as Grease. In that show, the songs were all written first, and the story was filling in the blanks. The story was slave to the songs and as a result we have a musical with some good songs, but that’s it. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Book of Mormon wasn’t based on anything, and that was enjoyable. Young Frankenstein was based on a movie, and that fell flat on its ass. Sweeney Todd is very loosely based on a real person, more an urban legend than anything else, and that was one of my favorite musicals. I dislike Grease for a lot of the same reasons my mother despises The Little Mermaid. Basically, I think the characters are all stupid and selfish and don’t really know what they are talking about. Granted, this is high school, but they act like this is the end game, like this will define who they are as adults forever, and as immature as we all were in high school, I think we were all aware that the story didn’t end with graduation. But I digress. You’ll have to ask my mother why she dislikes Little Mermaid.

                See, Rent falls into that category that I think Grease falls into. Good songs, crap story. And what’s more is that Rent not only tries to tell a story, but tries to make a statement about society, and I don’t think it does a very good job of it. So before people want to label me as homophobic or anti-lgbt, or say that I’m the kind of person who says people with AIDS are suffering God’s wrath, you can put that one away too, because like I said, it has a point to make, it doesn’t do a good job of making it though. One thing that Rent has in common with a lot of musicals is that it features a lot of people who are left behind by the system, the outcasts, the dregs of society, people that don’t fit in with society’s view of what things should be. Characters like that are at the center of Phantom, Les Mis, Wicked, and most recently, Hamilton. Ex cons, freaks of nature, lower class levels of society, sons of whores and and a scotsman, orphan bastards, you get the idea. All are people who cannot help the situation they are in, they were dealt a bad hand in life and now have to do the best with what they got. The same can be said for (some of) the characters in Rent. The same can also be said about the characters in Philadelphia and Angels in America. Both stories about homosexuals living with AIDS, both become social outcasts and exiled. And both stories handle these themes much better than Rent.

Here’s the difference: The people in Philadelphia and Angels in America are generally good people, or at least in Roy Cohn’s case, he gets what’s coming to him and has something resembling redemption. It’s complicated and I can’t fully get into it right now. In Rent, most of the characters are terrible people. Maureen is manipulative and emotionally abusive who cheats on both partners she has in the story, Angel (while generally a likable character) gets money after he kills a dog. Throughout the rest of the show she’s alright, but I can’t get over the fact that she killed a dog at the very beginning. How has Peta not said anything about this? Not only did a character kill an animal, but got wealthy off the deed. Mimi is a very self destructive type, which doesn't really make her a bad person, but she also enables her love interest which is cause for concern for me.

The other case that stands out to me is Mark. The self described artist who just films people in every day life. He says he shoots without a script, but then again, so do I whenever I use snapchat. Can I be an artist? He also films group therapy sessions of people who have AIDS. Sure, his buddy Collins is okay with it, but I don’t imagine other people would be. They have a hard enough time opening up, and now they are supposed to open up in front of a guy with a camera. A little sensitivity is all I’m asking. He also films a homeless person getting harassed by the cops. He gets called out on this, basically getting told he’s exploiting someone else’s tragedy for his gain, and it doesn’t change anything. The scene goes on like nothing happened. The thing that bugs me about characters like him and Maureen is that they act like they are in the gutter with the others who have HIV/AIDS, but in reality, neither of them are sick, and there’s no reason for them to be broke, they both come from wealthy families who are supportive. So stop acting like you guys have it rough. Also, stop acting like being broke and having weird ideas makes you a genius that society can’t handle. It doesn’t. Mark is not an artist because he shoots without a script, he’s just making home movies on the streets of New York. Again, does using snapchat make me an artist?

                It also bugs me to no end that he romanticizes poverty when he has the option to not live in poverty, while all around he’s surrounded by homeless people who don’t exactly have a way out. Really makes him seem like a dick for romanticizing their plight. Compare that to Marius in Les Mis. Yes, he comes from a wealthy family, yes he decided to reject that, but only because he saw a problem with society and decided to actually do something about it. He fought and nearly got killed trying to help his broke student friends create a better world. He is a man of action. Mark is not. Now in the grand scheme of things, Marius and his friends didn’t really accomplish much but at least they tried to do something. Mark won’t because he just wants to film, and he won’t try to market that film because he sees that as selling out. He gets a job in journalism and he sees that as selling out. He also lives in an apartment rent free and demonizes the person that lets him do so. Okay, so the guy is a friend of his from back in the day who sold out and joined the system. Translation: he got a stable job. But to someone as revolutionary and visionary as Mark, he may as well be Benedict Arnold, or Lucifer. A traitor to our movement, even though you extended an olive branch and let me live rent free in a building that you own. I am now entitled to this because I am an artist and because I do not fit the mold of society, I therefore should not follow the rules of society, and therefore, I must not be allowed to be charged rent. God I want to punch Mark in the face. Also, calling him Benedict Arnold was a history reference for those of you ‘artists’.

                You want to know how you can fix a character like Mark? Write him so he is actually part of a movement. During the 80’s there were plenty of these, particularly groups who protested the government’s inaction to the AIDS crisis, which some would argue is what caused the disease to spread as much as it did. These people took action, they tried to wake people up to the issue that many were blind to. Let Mark use his art for an actual purpose, other than to let him call himself an artist. This is what would make him more like a character like Marius, it would make him someone who sees an issue with the world around him and the way society is treating it, and did something about it, or at least tried. Instead, he’s a preppy whiner who only does that. Carries a camera and whines about issues that he doesn’t suffer from and is doing nothing to change.

                With all this said, I should say that I don’t hate everything about Rent, like I said before, I like the music a lot, the two best songs being No Day but Today and Seasons of Love. Take Me or Leave Me is also pretty good, even if Idina Menzel is using it to justify cheating on her partners.  And I can appreciate that it was trying to say something, I just think it went about it all wrong. 

Historical Figures Who Deserve Their Own Movie: Mystery/Thriller Edition.

After I wrote my post about people who deserve their own theatrical tributes, it came to my attention that there are several people out there that I, like the rest of the world, had overlooked. And the more that I thought about it, the more I began to realize that these people could all fit into the same genre, that being mystery and thriller. So, since last time, I talked about people who would be the subject of epic war movies, this time, we are going to talk about people whose mystery continues to baffle historians to this day, as well as potential audiences

#5- DB Cooper

Of all the people who are overdue for their own theatrical tribute (and I can think of at least 5), few deserve it more than DB Cooper. Who is DB Cooper you ask? Isn't that the million dollar unanswerable question. DB Cooper was a hijacker from the early 1970's whose hijacking of a plane and disappearance sparked intrigue, controversy, and about a dozen thrillers all taking place on planes. To this day, his true identity remains a mystery, along with Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, and whoever wanted to cast Nick Cage as Superman. For all we know, he was the first recruit for the Men in Black.

Why do we need this movie?

Because quite frankly, we are over due for one. And because we have two directors that are prime for this kind of movie: David Fincher, whose credits include Zodiac, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Se7en, all about people trying to solve unanswerable mysteries. The second is Ben Affleck, who has really established himself as one of the finest working directors today, making the criminally underrated The Town and Argo.

 #4- Lafayette Baker

Who is he? Oh, only the guy who led the investigation that led to the capture of the Lincoln conspirators. That and he was a spy during the American Civil War. Apart from that, he was just a shady dude. To this day, there are still a number of unanswered questions surrounding the death of Abraham Lincoln, and my guess is that he knew some of it because he was killed by poisoning less than five years after Lincoln's assassination. Was it revenge from a disgruntled southern sympathizer or was someone ensuring his silence?

 #3- Inspector Frederick Abberline

This entree with the most white-sounding name this side of Benedict Cumberbatch has a claim to fame that, while it may not have been entirely successful, you have to give him credit for trying. Inspector Abberline's biggest exploit was the investigation of this guy...

 You understand what I mean by giving the guy credit for trying? Like DB Cooper, the true identity of Jack the Ripper remains a mystery, even after 125 years and truth be told, I don't think the mystery will ever be solved. But going back to Abberline, he was known to be quite the eccentric policeman with quite the enthusiasm for disguises, not unlike Sherlock Holmes. It would be interesting to see a movie about his starting out as a detective and how the Ripper case impacted his life and career.

#2- Wild Bill Donovan 



You ever heard of the CIA? Well, a lot of its existence is owed to this guy. Initially, he was a soldier and medal of honor recipient, and then he was appointed head of the OSS during World War II by FDR. He then went on the be a central figure of the Nuremberg trials for Nazi war criminals... He was also shady as all get out. In his time as America's number one spy, he was less like Captain America and more like Walter Donovan from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He played people on both sides of the line for his own benefit, he did everything he could to cement a legacy for himself, a lot of time at other people's expense, he ordered a number of political murders, and it is even believed that he had a hand in the death of General George S Patton. That last part has never been confirmed, but the rest of his resume is enough to warrant some kind of biographical film. It would be interesting to say the least.

#1-  HH Holmes



This one might be cheating because rumor has it that Leo Dicaprio is in talks to play HH Holmes. Who was he? Oh, nobody. Only a master of insurance fraud, a man with many lives, and he was also America's first known serial killer. To this very day, there isn't an exact estimation on just how many people Holmes killed, but authorities at the time figured it to be at least 200. A movie about his capture would be truly fascinating as well as a dive into the psychology of one of America's first known psychopaths.

Random Thought: the danger of remastering old games

So with the new next-gen consoles finally catching their stride, I've noticed a new trend coming on. That is a studio taking a game that was really popular back in the day, and just re-releasing it. It first started when the original Halo got an update for the Xbox 360. HOwever that had a specific reason behind it. That being that Halo had recently been taken over by a new studio, and understandably, fans of the series were not really sure what would happen with the franchise, since this was years after Halo 3 came out, and there were really only whispers about what would happen if and when we would get Halo 4. So the new studio decided to put our fears to rest by going back to the beginning, taking the original masterpiece that we knew and loved, and updating the graphics for the new age. It was their way of saying "listen, we know what you are all thinking, so let us show you that we are actually fans of the series, we are going to take it seriously... and we are also looking to make a ton of money" Yeah, I'm not gonna deny that it was essentially a cash grab. Though when it came out, it was sold for a reduced price than what a normal game gets priced at, so it wasn't a complete cash grab. They did something similar with the Xbox One, only this time they released all four of the original games, with 2 getting the update treatment. And again, they offered it at $60 (the typical price for one game) for all 4 games, so it didn't feel like a total rip off. And the nice part was that you could easily switch back and forth between old graphics and new graphics with the push of a button, you don't even have to pause the game. It was a nice way of revisiting the game we grew up playing online and at friends' houses while also seeing how far we've come. I'll admit, I love the way they made everybody look in the new Halo 2, but at times, I couldn't help but go back to the original Xbox graphics. There was a charming nostalgia factor to it.

But then trouble hit.

Over the past year, I've been noticing more and more game series are deciding to forgo making original material for the fans and are instead just rereleasing old titles. Only now instead of doing what Halo did and making some kind of update, there appears to be little to no change in the games. Gears of War for example, I had played quite a bit when it was on the 360, and had enjoyed it enough that I decided to get the remastered version when I saw it had come out. I was kind of expecting something similar with Halo. Yeah I'm playing the same game but I can play it with an updated look... But that wasn't the case either. I went so far as to look up gameplay from the original Gears and I noticed little to no difference in the graphics. Normally I wouldn't have been bothered because the graphics were pretty kick ass to begin with, but I paid $60 for this game! And it wasn't the whole series as was the case with Halo, it was just the first game. Needless to say I felt kind of ripped off. The same thing happened later that year with the Bioshock series. The only difference is that I kept that, because I'm a fan of the games. Well, 2 of them anyway.

And now it appears that more games are doing this. Taking a game that was already good, and just rereleasing it for the next gen consoles. From Grand Theft Auto to Elder Scrolls to Call of Duty to Assassins Creed, we've been seeing a ton of franchises putting out old games with the "remastered' label slapped on. My issue comes down to this, if we keep buying old games for new consoles, then there really wasn't a point to us buying new consoles to begin with. Many of us probably still have the games that we are buying again. I don't want a remastered Assassins Creed 2 or Brotherhood, I want a NEW Assassins Creed game. Yeah, CoD 4: Modern Warfare was awesome, but let's get a new Call of Duty (don't worry, I'll address that issue later too). If we keep buying old games with the remastered label, then studios will think thats all we want and will continue to put out less and less new material until we aren't getting anything. It's exactly what people are saying is wrong with the movie industry, except here it's even more frustrating because even less effort is being put into the product, they are just copying and pasting on a different disc.

Some of these games aren't even that old either. Skyrim was released in 2011, it's barely half a decade old. GTA 5 and Bioshock Infinite were both released in 2013. None of these games have been around long enough that people are pointing out how dated the graphics look. We could do that with Halo cause the original has been around since 2001, and the second came to us in 2004, there was enough of a gap that we could see how much time had passed.

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal of this than I should, but there is no denying that we are seeing more and more of it. If we want to justify the new consoles we all spent money on, then we need something to justify it with, and a game that I first played less than 10 years ago doesn't really warrant.

My Issue with Blade Runner 2049

                Okay, so I know that the movie is still about a year away, but there is an issue that has yet to be addressed about the new Blade Runner sequel.

For those of you who don’t know, Blade Runner is a 1982 Ridley Scott movie starring Harrison Ford. The movie is about a type of robot, called a replicant, that looks like a human and is used to preform labor on off world colonies. Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard, a Blade Runner, which is a detective who is specifically trained to spot these robots. He gets called in because a small group of replicants have broken away from one of those off world colonies and come to earth for unknown reasons. As Deckard begins his search for the escaped replicants, we learn more about them and the rules that govern their existence. Chief among them is that they are only allowed to live a certain number of years before they expire, which is why, as Deckard learns, they have returned to earth. They don’t want to expire and are seeking the head of the company that created them in hopes that he can extend their lifespan.

 

Harrison Ford as Deckard and Sean Young as Rachel

Another character that Deckard meets is Rachel, a Tyrell employee who swears up and down that she is a human, but Tyrell says is a replicant herself. This is proved when Deckard recalls memories of hers that she had supposedly never told anyone, but in actuality belong to the nieces of Tyrell’s CEO. They were programmed into her to make her more convincing as a human.

I understand this is a lot of explanation, but bear with me.

Throughout the movie, Deckard keeps having the same dream about a unicorn. A fellow officer, played by Edward James Olmos, has a calling card of leaving origami figures wherever he goes. At the end of the movie, it is revealed that he has left an origami unicorn in Deckard’s apartment where Rachel has been living with Deckard. Now it is heavily implied that Deckard himself is a replicant. The movie ends on a note of uncertainty for both him and Rachel.

 Edward James Olmos as Eduardo Gaff

The question of Deckard being a replicant has long been an issue of debate among fans of the movie. Ridley Scott himself threw his two cents in and said that Deckard is in fact a replicant. Which brings us to the issue of the upcoming Blade Runner 2049. First off, it is coming more than 30 years after the original. I’ve always had a problem with sequels that come 20+ years after the original. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, Star Wars being among them. Of course, being that it is a science fiction movie, that does mean that the effects will be updated, which was always kind of distracting about the original. A movie with 30 yr old special effects is not gonna hold up that well, but the original also had a distinct visual style that kind of helps.

The second issue I have pertains to the issue of Deckard being a replicant. The smart way to go about this movie is to make it without Harrison Ford, or any mention of his character or of the events that transpired in the original film. The world of Blade Runner is big enough that you can make a separate story without interfering. The reason why I didn’t want Harrison Ford to be in the sequel is because now the mystery of the ending is ruined. It would be like Leo Dicaprio being in a sequel to Inception because it would clearly answer whether the top stopped spinning. Unlike Inception however, the mystery of Deckard isn’t clearly stated, it’s more hinted at. Deckard never asks “What am I?” he just gets a look. And now this subtle question is going to get a not so subtle answer, and that is going to piss a number of people off. Because again, replicants are only allowed to have the lifespan of 3 years, and if you look at Ford, there has clearly been a longer span of time than that. And it was addressed in the original movie that there are ways to increase lifespan, but they all have problems so the replicant wouldn’t get much of an expansion anyway. So Deckard has to be human, which completely contradicts what everyone has been saying.

Thirdly, the issue with a Blade Runner sequel is that the movie itself wasn’t a huge hit. It was a box office bomb and panned by critics, but in the years since its release, the movie has gotten quite the cult following and has gone from being a flop to hailed as a sci-fi masterpiece. With that said, I imagine a lot of people who watched the trailer to be asking a lot of questions. I mean, yeah Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto are in it, but what other reason will they have for going to see it? I guess depending on who you ask, that’s all the reason they will need.

 To its credit, the sequel does at least have the same visual style as the original

Now, before anybody wants to label me a fanboy that is just hating on something new, I’d like to make the following disclaimer: I’ve learned to approach such things with a less than completely shut off mind, while I do currently have issues with it so far, that’s not to say they won’t find a way around it. If the movie gets good enough reviews and other fans are saying they like it, then I will be more than happy to purchase a ticket. I’m just extremely nervous about it at this current time.

Rogue One vs The Force Awakens

Rogue One vs The Force Awakens

                Kathleen Kennedy might be one of the best things to happen to a franchise. Let me explain. Since she took over as the head of Lucasfilm, she made it clear that Star Wars would be open to a new generation of film makers, so that they may be given the chance to give their own vision to the Star Wars universe. That way, the films would not just be limited to one person’s idea of what it should be. This is similar to the way Kevin Feige has approached Marvel entertainment. While Kennedy and Feige are very much the ones in charge, they are more than happy to give their directors enough creative freedom to make the film they want.

                And that, oddly enough, is what my biggest criticism of George Lucas was. I’m willing to let the prequels go and just say “they sucked, now let’s move on with our lives”. I can forgive him for making sub par movies. What I can’t get over is that he is on record saying that Star Wars is restricted to his vision and what he wants. This is his brainchild and ain’t nobody gonna mess with it. He was once asked if someone came up to him with an idea for Episode VII, would he consider using it? Nope.

I don't really know what I'm supposed to take from this.Is he mansplaining what an opinion is?

                There are 2 issues I have with this. First of all, while George can certainly be credited for directing that first movie, what a lot of people tend to forget is that he didn’t have that much to do with the following 2 movies. And a good number of his original ideas for A New Hope were all scrapped and rewritten. If Star Wars had been his original vision, with as much control as he had over say, the prequels, then Star Wars probably wouldn’t have been the mega franchise that it is today, and I probably wouldn’t have wasted so much money on Darth Vader merch. I still would have wasted it, but it would probably be more Batman related. But I digress. The point is that with all things considered, it sounds like Lucas is taking a little more credit than he deserves.

                The second problem I have is that if you look at a number of today’s directors, including JJ Abrams, Christopher Nolan, Guillermo Del Toro, Rian Johnson, Joss Whedon, Peter Jackson, Ron Howard, Ridley Scott, and Brad Bird have all stated how much they love Star Wars and how much it impacted their careers. If you know your directors, you’ll notice that they all have very different styles. Whedon and Nolan, for example, have both made excellent sci-fi and superhero movies. But both have very different approaches. And yet, if I told you that either one was going to make a Star Wars movie, you’d probably get excited. Whedon actually confessed to owning 8 lightsabers. With such an array of talent all pointing to one movie as being the one that made them want to get into film making, it seems wrong to keep it restricted to one person’s idea of what it should and shouldn’t be. Especially when that one person is taking too much credit in the first place. I find it funny that the one criticism about the newer Star Wars movies is that they are just high budget fan films. Cause that's exactly what they are. They are films made by fans who grew up and want to make a movie of their own. And they found a studio who is willing to let them do that.

                And that idea of having two visions for the same series brings us to today’s topic, Force Awakens and Rogue One. One of the criticisms that a lot of people had of TFA was that it felt like it played it safe, it was the Star Wars  movie that we were used to. Although the argument could be made that TFA was the exact time to play it safe. Keep in mind, it had been ten years since the last prequel came out, and since then, all we had were an animated show and an animated movie that nobody bothered with. Seriously, who remembers the animated Clone Wars movie? So for all intents and purposes, we just kind of considered the franchise to be dead before TFA came along. This was the time to play it safe. It was the time to give us the Star Wars that we knew and loved. Think of it as a friend who you haven’t seen in a while but the last time you saw them, things didn’t end on the best of terms. But when you do see them after all these years, you just want to remember the good times you had with them. Sure that means you’re just remembering stuff from years ago, but it gives you a sign that things are looking up. And after you’ve had that first encounter, now you are more open to having some new experiences and making new memories now that you are older and more mature than the last time you met. To give you an idea of where I’m going with this, your friend is Star Wars, and that first encounter you have with them is The Force Awakens after being left with Revenge of the Sith. So yeah, TFA had a lot of stuff that we had seen before, but it also introduce enough new things and characters that it made us excited for what was to come. That new thing to come is Rogue One. Rogue One is what we wanted to see as fans who grew up and wanted to see a Star Wars movie that was darker, grittier, more mature. The one thing that has become evident in the last decade is that things like comic book heroes, fantasy, science fiction and video games aren’t just kids stuff anymore, and they aren’t just limited to the geek section anymore. With movies like The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Game of Thrones, the geek culture has expanded and touched all walks of pop culture. People who don’t like fantasy found themselves reading A Song of Ice and Fire, even people who never read a comic book in their life are lining up to see a Marvel movie the night it comes out. The Force Awakens was everything Star Wars has been, Rogue One is showing us what it can do. Since The Force Awakens managed to be a hit financially and with a lot of fans while taking the safer route, it paved the way for Rogue One to take risks and do things that we hadn’t seen in a Star Wars movie before. Unfortunately I can’t really go into much more without spoiling things.

                Truth be told, I think this was the only way it could have happened. While Star Wars should not be seen as just kids stuff, it has always been seen as that thing that we grew up with and now we want our kids to experience it the same way we did. If someone had taken their kids to see a movie like Rogue One, people wouldn’t have known what to make of it. Sure it still would have been a hit because it was a great movie, but there certainly would have been people asking is this what Star Wars has become? And then we wouldn’t know what to think when we started seeing advertisements for Episode VII. This really was the right way for things to go. Sure, they played it safe initially, but they did it the best way possible. Now Kennedy is showing that she and Lucasfilm have the spine to take the franchise in other directions and to darker places. Many people believed that the studio had doubts about letting Gareth Edwards take this route, but now their gamble is paying off, which will hopefully encourage the studio to keep it up. And if you think I’m full of shit, and that Star Wars is dead now thanks to Disney’s involvement, then that’s your prerogative. I’ll enjoy my money from Disney. Not because they are paying me to say that I liked the movie, but because I literally work for them. I’m a cast member.

Batman: The Killing Joke- about as no win as it gets

Oh fanboys. We really are the greatest example of people who don’t know what we really want. We want something, but we only want it a certain way. If that certain way is not met in even the tiniest degree, then the rest is garbage. We have really yet to grasp the idea that beggars can’t be choosers.

A classic example of this is the animated adaptation of the Alan Moore comic Batman: The Killing Joke. With the recent surge of popularity that comic book heroes, particularly Batman, have been getting, as well as a renewed interest in seeing animated movies about these beloved characters, we all knew it was only a matter of time before The Killing Joke was at least mentioned, if not produced. With various stories revolving around the Red Hood, the Suicide Squad and even the New 52’s Court of Owls storyline, many people were wondering if we were ever going to get a movie based on The Killing Joke. Well, before long, our questions were answered. Not only were we getting a full movie, not only was it going to be animated by the same team as the acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series, but it was also going to feature the voices of who many of us see as the OG Batman and Joker, Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. In addition, it was also confirmed that the movie would be rated R, which at the very least meant that they wouldn’t subtract anything from the dark, violent, graphic and downright bleak source material.

Here’s the problem, the graphic novel is actually not that long. If you wanted just an adaptation of the book and nothing more, you’re essentially looking at an episode of the television series mixed with Hannibal. In an effort to be fair, let’s play a little devil’s advocate with the studio. Keep in mind, this is a graphic novel everybody has an opinion on, so naturally they are going to have some strong things to say about the movie.

-So we make it longer, we expand the story, flesh out the characters, add a few twists and turns to make the mystery more intriguing and-

-Yeah, I’m gonna stop right there. See, while that may seem like the logical route, and probably would have been the best choice, you have to consider that you are talking about comic geeks. Ones that are pining over a novel that is 30 years old. You saw how intense my hatred was over Batfleck being a trigger happy cold blooded killer in BvS. Imagine how a less reasonable person would feel if you suggested that to them in regards to The Killing Joke.

-Okay, so what do we do? We can’t touch the actual novel itself, and we sure as crap aren’t going to spend this much money on making essentially a standalone episode of the show. How about we tack on a prologue at the beginning?

-Okay, we could do something involving the Joker, I mean this is afterall his story, we could get a history of his and Batman’s relationship through his eyes, maybe we can gain some sympathy for him.

-OR… Or we could add a whole subplot involving Batgirl and her relationship with Batman. Keep in mind, Robin is not around in this story.

-Wait why are we doing that? Barbara has little to do in this story. Her one scene is her getting shot.

- True but if that’s all we give her to do in our movie, then people will get pissed off at us and call us sexist. And there are the Batgirl fans to think about.

-First of all, feminists hated the graphic novel as it is, so you are walking into a no-win already. Second, why would a batgirl fan want anything to do with The Killing Joke? It’s not gonna end well for them either.

-Well we need to remind people of who she is as Batgirl and why this is such a tragic moment.

-True, it is a tragic moment, but we don’t need reminding. How many comics, movies and even the video games exist that show us how badass she is and the relationship she has with the Bat family? Hundreds? Maybe thousands? We don’t need reminding that she is an important aspect of the Bat canon. Hell, the show did a pretty good job of cementing her relationship with Batman and Robin.

-Exactly. We are going to draw from her character in the Animated Series.

-Well, I’ve heard of worse options

-Remember how she had a thing for Bruce Wayne in the Animated Series?

-….. Vaguely. It wasn’t really explored THAT much. Keep in mind, most of the time, their relationship is seen more as being paternal than anything else. Sure, she has a functioning and close relationship with her father, Jim, but Batman is also something of a surrogate father.

- So how about we have them hook up in the prologue?

- You’re losing me.

- Well, you said that you remembered her having a thing for Bruce in the animated series. We can expand on that to say that at one point, they did have a relationship but it went south because of who they are as people and therefore she can have a stronger effect on Batman after she gets crippled by the Joker. We’ll write the scene so it’s more of a built up release, a heated moment of passion. Like when 2 normal people have a one night stand, or when a couple takes things too far too soon in the relationship. The effect will be less about the act itself and more about the fall out. It’ll be as much Batman’s fault as it is Batgirl’s fault. And then afterward one of them will want to talk about it, while the other doesn’t want to. Both are clearly kicking themselves over it, and are not really sure how they are going to get past it. Since things were left on a sour note las time they saw each other, that’s what will add depth to the tragedy of her shooting.

-First of all, I said I vaguely remembered it. How well do you think the other fanboys are going to handle it? Secondly, I think everybody shipped her with one of the Robins, usually Dick Grayson or Tim Drake. I mean, I see what you’re going for, and I can appreciate the effort, but that’s not the way I’d do it. And I think you are going to piss off some die-hard fans with that. Keep in mind, people always see them as being more father/daughter, so there is some serious Oedipus complex vibes going with this approach.

-But what’s the point of adapting something if we aren’t allowed to put our own spin on it? Like you said, we can’t add anything to the original story itself, we can’t make a thirty-minute movie, and if we aren’t going to put some kind of creative stamp on it, then we might as well not make the movie and just let people stick to the graphic novel, if that’s all they really want.

-I guess what we can take from this is that you’re screwed no matter what you do. Either you keep things the way they are, and get criticized for just sticking to your guns, or you try to add something, and you get criticized for butchering the lore.

Sidenote: It should be noted that audiences reacted differently to this addition. When the crowd saw it at comic-con, they were calling for the heads of all involved. When we saw it the other night at a fathom events screening, people had more time to digest and wrap their heads around the news. That being said, while we still weren’t on board with the Batman/Batgirl scene, we could at least appreciate what they were trying to do, even if it wasn’t the most ideal way.

As far as the actual story of The Killing Joke itself, it’s about as faithful an adaptation as you can get. The script is almost word-for-word from the book, some of the shots are ripped straight from the panels of the comic, combined with beautiful animation and the voice work of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t without room for improvement. There are moments that could have used more time, the two greatest examples being when the joker first emerges from the chemicals and sees his new reflection in the water and finally cracks. Keep in mind, this is the joker at the end of his “one bad day” that finally made him who he is. He has gone through loss and failure and in his desperation has gone off the deep end before he actually goes off the deep end. So the moment when he rises from the chemical waste, only to see the drastic transformation that he has undertaken, there could have been a few beats between him seeing his reflection and that first laugh as the joker. The other moment is when Commissioner Gordon tells Batman that he wants things done “by the book!” This is a man who just went through torture, both physical and mental, and humiliation. He has every right to want the joker beaten to a pulp and shot, but he never waivers in his convictions, and is mentally sound as ever, always grounded in his faith in the system, in humanity and that “our way will work”. So when he says the line “I want it done by the book!” it could have used some more dramatic weight in its delivery.

With all that said, the movie does deliver in some ways while coming up short in others. The animation, like I said, is beautiful and if I was going to hear anybody voice Batman and The Joker, for this adaptation, I wouldn’t have wanted to hear anybody but Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. To many of us, they are the definitive voices. It doesn’t matter which comic I’m reading, if I’m looking at Batman and the Joker, those are the voices I always hear when they are talking. If you liked The Killing Joke when you read it, then this should live up to your expectations. If you didn’t like the book, then this won’t do much to sway you.

Ghostbusters (2016)

No film has had to travel through quite the winding road as did Ghostbusters. Not many people know but initially the plan was to actually make a third Ghostbusters movie following the two with Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson and company. However after multiple scripts getting bounced around, Bill Murray saying he did want to be involved, then saying he didn't want anything to do with it, and Dan Akroyd acting all kooky, nobody could really say for sure when they were going to make Ghostbusters 3. Finally, after the death of Harold Ramis, I think they all just said screw it. Of course, knowing Sony, they were not going to relent so easily. Even if literally everybody involved with the first 2 movies said they weren't going to make a third, they were still going to make a third. And thus, Ghostbusters 2016 was born.

The story is much more complicated than that, but that's about as cut and dry as I can make it. Also, Akroyd thinks that aliens planned to visit us, but then 9/11 happened and they said "Yeah... No".


So, truth be told, even though I enjoy the original Ghostbusters very much, I wouldn't really consider myself a "fan". Or rather, I don't fit the fan community's definition of a true fan. For example, I had no idea until last year that everybody disliked Ghostbusters 2 as much as they did. I mean yeah, the first is obviously better, but Ghostbusters 2 didn't make me seethe the way other people did. I mean it's not a great movie but it's enjoyable. And I wasn't clamoring and anxiously waiting to hear any news regarding a third movie like others were. I figured if they hadn't made it by 2000, then it probably wasn't getting made. I actually kinda saw reboot as the natural step to take. Or rather, the natural step for the studio to take. I would have continued the sequel route, but in a JJ Abrams sense. The original cast is still there, but they play a smaller role so to let those who take the baton have their moments in the spotlight.

Anyway, my hopes were not really all that high going into the theater. I saw both trailers and wasn't really impressed. I liked all the leading ladies and thought they were great choices to play the new team, but I was afraid that their talents would be wasted on a script that was all about throwbacks and wink winks to the original. So before you start calling me misogynist, which it took me 3 attempts to spell correctly, just know that that was my position going in.


So after all the hype and the rage and the debates and the mud slinging, how did the final movie turn out?

















In my opinion, surprisingly okay.

It starts out very weak and even after it picks up it still has its weak moments. There are a number of cameos that I thought could (should) have just been left out, and I noticed a trend that all of the male characters are either assholes or dopes. The villain I thought was kinda weak and not really memorable at all. And I couldn't get over the fact that everybody was just so cartoony. I mean yeah, they're a little unhinged but do we need them to all be looney toons?

With that said, there are a number of hilarious moments. The best lines are delivered by Chris Hemsworth, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon. Of course Kirsten Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are always great and they have great chemistry together. On top of that, the actual ghostbusting equipment was really cool with some cool new tech and weapons and the look of the ghosts themselves were actually a nice upgrade. And it was nice to see Slimer upgraded with modern effects.


I feel kinda bad that I don't have a whole lot more to say about the final product, but in actuality the majority of what there is to talk about regarding this movie has more to do with what's surrounding the movie rather than the movie itself. It's hard to talk about it without being labeled. If I say the movie sucked (which it definitely did at times), I'm sexist. If I say that I enjoyed this movie (which I did at times), then I get told that I'm not a true fan of the original and that I've bought into Hollywood politics. Well, like I said, I don't really fit into that idea of a "fan", and as someone on the outer fringes of the debate circle, I'd have to give this movie a C. Not totally sucky, but still not all that great either. Put away the pitchforks guys.