On Black Widow and Marvel's Gaps (or, Why We Need a Black Widow Movie)

On the recent Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) episode of The Skiffy and Fanty Show, I argued that part of what bothered me about the Black Widow scene wherein she reveals having been sterilized in the Red Room is that it clarified what was an obvious gap in Marvel's Cinematic Universe.  We need a Black Widow movie, I said -- more so now than ever.  This is a somewhat complicated position, and I'd like to explore that in-depth here.

For those that don't know, I'll spoil the bit everyone is talking about:

On Agency: Strong Female Characters, the Myth of Non-Action, and Jupiter Ascending

By now you'll have heard the "Jupiter Jones doesn't have agency" criticism of Jupiter Ascending (dirs. the Wachowskis; 2015).[1]  The gist of the argument, as far as I can tell, is that Jupiter doesn't have agency (or enough agency) because she does not become a "strong female character" until the last possible second.  Andrew O'Hehir, for example, wrote in his Salon.com review that

Jupiter has less female agency than any character ever played by Doris Day. Compared to this movie, the Disneyfied feminism of “Frozen” and “Brave” and “Maleficent” feels like Valerie Solanas’ "SCUM Manifesto."

Peter Debruge wrote in Variety that

[although] clearly conceived as an empowered female heroine, poor Jupiter spends most of the movie being kidnapped and shuffled from one unpleasant situation to another, whether that’s being nearly assassinated during an egg-donating operation or pushed into a marriage with a two-faced Abraxas prince.

Sam Maggs wrote in The Mary Sue:

On Ridley Scott's Exodus and Bannings

The Washington Post reports that Egypt has banned Ridley Scott's controversial Bible film, Exodus (starring Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, and Ben Kingsley), due to "alleged historical inaccuracies and a 'Zionist' agenda."  You can read the article for more detail, though I would suggest extra care here given the region under discussion and the inevitable spin that will come out of U.S. news sources.  For the record:  the BBC has reported the same thing, more or less.

I should also note that I'm not going to defend Exodus from the charges that it is inaccurate in any direct sense.  Honestly, I don't think the movie should have been made.  Its white-washing of history and clear manipulation of Biblical narrative for "sensationalist imagery" -- not to mention Ridley Scott's absurd defense of the former -- have not endeared the film to me.  In fact, I'm perfectly content with never seeing Exodus, and I sincerely hope it does so poorly that Hollywood thinks again before letting Ridley Scott ruin anything else.  But none of this is a reason to ban the film.  They made it, and if theaters want to play it, then so be it.

Now, to my thoughts:

Movie Review Rant: Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

I've only recently decided to watch the new iterations of the (in)famous web-crawler.  Originally, I had no intention of ever doing so, in part because of a misplaced loyalty to the Raimi renditions (2002, 2004, and 2007).  The real kicker, for me, was the fact that these films came hot off the heels of a preceding adaptation, and they were not a continuation of the original story, but a reboot.  Something about that rubbed me the wrong way.  But then I broke down and watched Amazing Spider-Man (2012; I'll talk about this movie another time) and liked it well enough that I wanted to see how the character would progress.  And so here I am -- reviewing Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)(ASM2 from now on).

(There will be some spoilers in this review.  I have, however, refrained from spoiling major plot elements that you wouldn't have learned about from the trailers.  I will discuss some of these elements in the footnotes, though, as they need to be discussed in the context of my rant.)

Film Remakes and the Necessity for Critical Distance

Hollywood is hopelessly obsessed with remakes.  We all know this.  And if we don't, it's really not that difficult to figure out how obsessed Hollywood really is.  But I'll make it easy for you here:  here's a list of 57 remakes which were marked as "in development" as of July 2013.  Some of those may have been dropped, but the fact of the matter is that there were 57 remakes in various stages of development last year.

There's nothing inherently wrong with remakes, of course.  After all, many remakes tackles films that are now 30+ years old, which means the primary viewing audience -- let's say 15 to 40 -- probably hasn't seen them anyway.  Some remakes are attempts to update concepts which haven't aged well, or which really are pretty darn cool and would benefit from newer film technologies and bigger budgets (technically, this year's Robocop fits into this category, but that film is terrible).  It makes sense, too, why Hollywood studios would choose to remake a film:  it's safer to reboot something that was already a success -- or which has a following or concept that would work well in today's market -- since the discussion surrounding the remake will naturally include buzz about the previous version; obviously, this can sometimes backfire, as in the case of Total Recall or Robocop (or perhaps it's more often than not), as it's difficult to find remakes which are absolutely better than their predecessors.  There's almost always something "missing."

I tend to think of remakes in two ways:

Movie Review Rant : Catching Fire (2013)

As I write this sentence, Catching Fire (2013), the sequel to The Hunger Games (2012), is encroaching upon the $700mil box office mark.  It's a huge film, and there are a lot of things to love about it.

Before I get to my rant/review, here are a couple quick notes:

My Hopes and Anticipations for Science Fiction and Fantasy in 2014

2014 is almost upon us, and I'm already thinking about what is to come.  What will 2014 be like?  Will it be awesome?  Will someone release a stunning science fiction novel or an exciting YA fantasy or an *epic* epic fantasy?  The only way to find out is to live long enough to see it, I suppose (that's my early New Year's resolution).  But I do have my hopes for next year.  Big, juicy hopes.  And they are as follows:

Top 10 Science Fiction and Fantasy Movies Since 2010 (Thus Far)

This is just the beginning.  I'm going to make an announcement about this very topic after I pass my PhD candidacy exams in September.  For now, however, I'd like to offer a list of films I consider to be "the best" in the SF/F category for the years 2010-2013 (thus far).  By "the best," I mean "films I think are good movies as movies."  A lot of these films were quite popular when they were in theaters, but I'm not concerned by popularity here.  I'm only concerned with what I think are well-written and/or well-produced films.  A film with a thin plot can still be great if it does something more than just throw lots of action at the audience to hide its flaws (this is why you will see no Michael Bay films on the list).

And on that note, I will shut up.

The following are the top 10 SF/F movies released since 2010...for now (this list will change as I start to watch things I missed):

Flavorwire "SF/F Films Everyone Should See" Meme: How many have you seen?

The fine folks at Flavorwire recently released a list of 50 SF/F films they think everyone should watch (technically, there are 63 titles on the list, since they counted series as one).  I figured it would be fun to turn it into a meme.  So here you go:

Star Trek Movies and TV Shows: Ranked by Me

On August 11th, Badass Digest released a Trekkie-voted ranked list of all the Star Trek movies to date (plus Galaxy Quest, for some reason).  It's a strange list, to say the least.  Why is Galaxy Quest on there?  Other than the fact that it's a mostly-direct parody of Star Trek, it isn't actually a Star Trek movie.  And why did they stick Star Trek Into Darkness at the end, when it's obviously not the worst film on the list?

OK, so I have a good answer for that last question.  We talked about this a little in a recent Shoot the WISB episode.  Basically, the reversal of the Khan narrative probably came off as a slap in the face to Trekkies.  I even think it smelled disgusting, even though I kind of like the idea of switching things around.  After all, Spock isn't supposed to be an emotional man, so the idea that he'd break down after the supposed death of Kirk adds some weight to the moment.  But...it wasn't handled well.  There wasn't enough character development; the death of Kirk was handled in the way you'd expect a comic book to handle it:  he's dead...wait, no, not really, here's some magic *poof.*  At least in Wrath of Khan, Spock died.  He was dead dead dead.  The film never says "hey, we'll magic him into existence...right at the end."  If you've never seen Search for Spock, you really do think the guy has friggin died.  And that's a big deal.  The audience sometimes needs that slap in the face.

But I digress.  Prepare to be pissed off.  The following is my ranked list of Star Trek movies, minus Galaxy Quest:

Retro Nostalgia: Aliens (1986) and Ripley's Maternities (Some Rambly Thoughts)

(What follows are some random thoughts I had while re-watching James Cameron's Aliens.  I'd love to open up a nice discussion about the film, so feel free to leave a comment agreeing/disagreeing with or adding to my argument(s).)

I've always loved the relationship between Ripley and Hicks.  Obviously, it's implied that there's a significant romantic link between them, but the film makes light of it through jokes, in part so the very real problem -- survival in the face of certain death -- never falls prey to the romantic narrative underneath.  And there's also a sense -- for me, anyway -- that Ripley and Hicks don't

Month of Joy: "The Joy of City Stomping" by David Annandale

Though their heyday was undoubtedly the 1950s and 60s, giant monsters have rampaged through the movies long before and long after the era that saw the arrival of the Big Bugs, Godzilla and friends, and Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion marvels. Obviously, King Kong casts his long shadow from 1933, but before him were the dinosaurs of The Lost World in 1925 (whose climax features the first city rampage), and even earlier, Georges Méliès gave us the likes of the Frost Giant from The Conquest of the Pole in 1912, and the titular Gigantic Devil in 1902. So, when all is said and done, we have had well over a century of giant monsters stomping (or, in Méliès’ case, cavorting) across our screens.

Why?

I’m trying to tackle the question from a particular angle, given the theme of Shaun’s site this week.

A Justice League Movie? (or, Hopefully This Won't Be a Missed Opportunity)

Since Man of Steel hit theaters, there's been a lot of talk about a potential Justice League movie.  We even mentioned this topic in the latest Shoot the WISB episode on the new Superman film.  Much of the discussion is based on rumors, no doubt supported by this oddly blank IMDB page, which suggests that some sort of Justice League film will hit a screen of some description in 2015.  Now, Henry Cavill, who plays Supes in Man of Steel, has suggested that a Justice League adaptation likely won't happen any time soon.

What does that mean?  I don't know.  In Hollywood time, that could mean 3 minutes or 3 decades, or it could mean a black hole has popped into existence and swallowed DC.  A lot of folks want to see Flash and Wonder Woman in film form before Justice League reaches the big screen.  I,

Why I Hated Superman Returns

Honestly, I hated Superman Returns because it established Superman as virtually (though not actually) limitless, at which point he becomes uninteresting to me as a hero. Clearly Kryptonite doesn't really matter. He can lift entire islands of the stuff into the sky, so all this talk about it being his bad news bears is really just nonsense. At best, it's a nuisance.  And since he can basically do anything, there's no reason to ever worry that he will fail. That's what makes a good hero for me. We know, deep down, he won't fail, but on the outside, we see his weaknesses and know that it's always possible that he will (or she, for that matter).

What also makes Superman a fantastic hero isn't his strength and other abilities; it's his constant need to do the right thing, even in the face of terrible adversity. This is why I think the trailer for the new film is so effective (even if the film falls short -- haven't seen it, so I can't say). The idea that Superman is someone we're supposed to look up to and an image to strive towards makes him such

Retro Nostalgia: Contact (1997) and Conflating Faith and Science and Its Hopeful Ethos

Anyone with a passing familiarity with Carl Sagan's popularization of science will recall his profound optimism, both with humanity's scientific endeavors and its almost desperate need to strive for "more."  I think it's fair to say that he imagined science as humanity's great thrust to greatness -- to controlling itself and its environment.  After all, he famously said that "[imagination] will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."  And while he was not a religious man, he didn't fear suggesting that science could provide a spiritual vision of the world:

Shoot the WISB #02: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Reviewed w/ Paul Weimer and Jay Garmon

Spoiler Alert:  the following podcast contains spoilers for the film being reviewed; if you wish to see the film without having it ruined for you, download this podcast and save it for later.

Paul Weimer (website / twitter) and Jay Garmon (website / twitter) join me to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of J.J. Abrams' second installment in the Star Trek film reboot.  Feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments below.

You can download or stream the mp3 from this link.

The Black Guy is Ruining the Fantastic Four Reboot!

Oh, what?  He isn't?  Are you sure?  I mean.  He's black.  That means, like, Sue has to be black, right?  She doesn't?  Johnny or Sue could be adopted?  Or they could be children of different mothers or fathers or maybe they're interracial or something?  But I thought if you're half black and half white you just look almost white?  That's not true?  Really?  Well, the original Johnny was a white guy, so he has to stay white.  What about Idris Elba?  Oh, yeah, he was cool in Thor?  The original character wasn't a black guy?  Oh, well, then that's OK because he's not a major character.  Besides, this doesn't have anything to do about race.  I know I keep talking about it.  But just because I talk about race doesn't mean what we're talking about is actually about race, even if the only reason we're talking about it is because a black guy might be the Human Torch.  It's just not about race, OK?

That pretty much sums up the stupidity you'll find online about the rumor of Michael B. Jordan's (of Chronicle fame) possible casting as the Human Torch in the reboot of The Fantastic Four.

How Not to Write a Review (or, "Oblivion isn't about Tom Cruise, dumbass...")

In a recent New York Times review of the SF action adventure film, Oblivion, Manohla Dargis opens with the following:

If only it were less easy to laugh at “Oblivion,” a lackluster science-fiction adventure with Tom Cruise that, even before its opening, was groaning under the weight of its hard-working, slowly fading star and a title that invites mockery of him and it both. The agony of being a longtime Tom Cruise fan has always been a burden, but now it’s just, well, dispiriting. You not only have to ignore the din of the tabloids and swat away the buzzing generated by his multiple headline-ready dramas, you also have to come to grips with the harsh truth that it no longer actually matters why and how Tom Terrific became less so. No one else much cares.

This opening paragraph is followed by another much like it, in which Dargis argues pretty much the same thing:  Tom Cruise is on the way out because he's nuts.  This train of thought makes up most of the review.  There's little time spent actually defending why Oblivion is lackluster or why,

The Sequel We Deserve: Galaxy Quest...2 or the Show?

In a recent Flavorwire interview, Mark Johnson, the producer of Breaking Bad (a show I'm told is really good), offered this little gem:

I wish... It’s complicated. I can’t get into it because it only gets me angry, because I’m so proud of that movie… For a while there, and someday we may actually get there, we actually talked about doing a television show which would be sort of fun because it would be a TV show looking at a movie that’s looking at a TV show, something like that. So I wish I could answer you and I wish we did have a sequel or certainly a half hour comedy based on it. So we’ll see. It’s not over.

Needless to say, some of us are excited.  I've previously said that Galaxy Quest would make a terrific TV show.  I still believe that, though I certainly wouldn't complain about a sequel film if the

Retro Nostalgia: Gattaca (1997) and Framing the Multivalent Ethical Dilemma

Before Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997) begins in earnest, we are compelled to think about its underlying ethical dilemma:  is a meritocratic system based on (mostly pre-selected) genetic variables justified, even if that means denying some people equal access simply because their genes say there is something wrong with them?  If you have seen the film, then you know how the story ends -- the genetic "weakling" succeeds at doing the impossible, throwing into question the very notion that one's genetics are an absolute determination of one's potential.  Thus, one possible side question is:  without the aforementioned meritocratic system, would Vincent/Jerome have fought so hard to succeed?  Questions like this are why films like Gattaca, The Truman Show, The Minority Report and, to a lesser extent, District 9, Logan's Run, and