The Black Panther movie

It's a slow period in the publishing arena for me. And since there's not much to report, I'll just do what I sometimes do and review a TV show or movie.

I was a kid when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the world's first black superhero Black Panther. He first appeared as a supporting character in the comic The Fantastic Four. I figure it was Jack Kirby who came up with the concept. But I might be wrong. It could be that Stan Lee told Jack to draw a superhero from Africa, i.e., the first black superhero, and Jack did. I'm content to give them both credit for the concept of the Black Panther and his backstory.

The concept was certainly unique. The Black Panther is the king of a hidden African kingdom, and not just another tribal kingdom, but one that more resembles the advanced technological nations of Europe, albeit, entirely African. And this fictitious nation called Wakanda will have a one-up on the European nations. It will have "vibranium" which is a rare metal from a meteor that landed in Wakanda some years earlier, and provides the means to create highly specialized devices.

For instance, Captain America's shield is made from vibranium. I never really learned just how the Americans managed to get the vibranium from Wakanda to make the shield, since no one was supposed to even know that Wakanda existed. Nevertheless, it's one example of a special something made from vibranium. And the movie came up with a bunch of other stuff as well.

The Black Panther, even as a kid was always one of my favorite superheros. You might ask me why. I'm not black. And I had no special connection to Africa. But there's one thing about me, and it's something that I wasn't taught. And it's something of which I can be proud. Skin color never mattered to me. It just never did. Throughout my youth, in the 60s and 70s, skin color was a non-issue to me even as all the riots and racism, (both white AND black racism, that is,) raged all around me.

To me people were people, and it didn't matter what color was their skin, what country was their origin, or what language did they speak. And to this day I remain the same. And when I see others who do not share that belief, I can only shake my head and consider them with disgust.

Whenever my students happen to bring up skin color or nationality in any negative way, I chastise them immediately. I tell them the same thing I just wrote above. And I ask them why does anyone have to consider people as white people, or black people, or brown people, or this kind of people or that kind of people? I ask them why cant we all just be PEOPLE, and leave it at that? And I can sense that they agree with me. It's a wonderful feeling to sense that from kids.

But for adults, perhaps it's just an impossible thing. Just like it's impossible to get rid of all the guns in this country. It's just an impossible thing. It's the world we live in. And however it goes, I won't be in it for that much longer. But my sons will and their sons. What's in store for them?

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 -- Meh...

I had collected Marvel comic books when I was a kid. But by the time Guardians of the Galaxy became a comic mag, I had stopped buying and/or reading comics long before. I've blogged about how I've been generally disappointed with the Marvel movies for the past several years.

The funny thing is that when I was buying the comics, I would have loved to have seen these movies. But I'm with the impression that even as a kid I would have had the same disappointment upon seeing them. So I've never bought nor have I read a Guardians of the Galaxy comic book. I did see the first movie, and I was not impressed, yet I managed to find some enjoyment in seeing the movie. Of course, having never read or collected the book, I had no reference to compare it with. My belief is if I had I would have been just as disappointed with it as I had been with the X-Men movies, the Avengers movies, the Fantastic Four movies, and so on.

But while I was sitting there last night watching Guardians 2 with my son and wife, it became obvious to me that the targeted audience was an audience that was twelve years old. I mentioned this to my son who's fifteen. He said, not twelve, more like ten, and since he's closer to those age groups, I'll go with his assessment.

So, yeah, it was like they made the movie for ten year olds. Goofy characters and goofy jokes, many of which were on the level of slapstick, and as an adult, it was very tedious to put up with. Were there things that were good? When I saw the trailer, Kurt Russell's part seemed like it was going to be good. It was. And I had no clue that Sylvester Stallone had a cameo, and it was good. But as someone who never read the comic, I'll never know if it was in tune with the comic.

It turned out that Kurt Russell's role was Ego, the living planet. I remembered the character Ego the living planet from when I was a kid. I thought the concept of Ego becoming a human, and the way they made it happen was pretty good. I'm not sure if it's all from the comics, but if it was, I can buy that. And Ego being the father of the main character, Peter Quill was intriguing.

Again, the character of Ego the living planet was a character I had known from my days collecting comics. Ego was a Jack Kirby creation, and like most Jack Kirby creations, Ego was a great comic book character. Like Galactus, the Silver Surfer, the Inhumans, and pretty much every other character from the Fantastic Four comic book, all created by Jack Kirby, (not Stan Lee.)

I won't get into the plot or story line of Guardians 2, but I'll stress the main reason why it wasn't a movie for me. Let me put it this way: the IQ level of the writing. It was too low. Despite the good concepts with Ego, Kurt Russell, and such, the overall screenplay was dumbed down for an audience of little kids. It was even dumber than a Power Rangers movie. Seriously. It's like the producers of Guardians targeted an audience younger than the Power Rangers audience.

So there you go. If you liked Power Rangers, Guardians might be for you. If you have an IQ over 90, however, maybe not. Unless you're a Three Stooges fan. Then maybe you'll like it. It's more like The Three Stooges as the Guardians of the Galaxy. Yep, that about sums it up.

X-Men: Apocalypse

I took my son and saw X-Men Apocalypse last night. Since my childhood, the X-Men comic had always been my favorite comic. I stopped buying comics when my first son was born, but before that I was an on again off again purchaser of comics.

Mostly off again. I had collected comics when I was twelve through about fifteen. Started up again in my late teens and early twenties. Stopped for a long time. But when the X-Men cartoon came out in the 90s, I started up again and actually completed the entire X-Men run from Number One through about three hundred something.

So yeah. The X-Men was my favorite. When the first X-Men movie came out I was okay with it. I hated the casting mostly. Halle Berry was an awful Storm. She was too short, and did not possess that regal appearance Storm had in the comics. Famke Janssen was an awful Jean Grey. She was too tall and way too old. James Marsden was an awful Scott Summers/Cyclops. Too short and too soft. Ian McKellan was too old and too skinny to be a decent Magneto. Anna Paquin was too short and too mushy faced to be Rogue.

As for actors who worked in those earlier movies, Captain Picard was acceptable as Professor X, but that was only because Patrick Stewart was the most famous bald actor at the time. Hugh Jackman looked like Wolverine, although he's over six feet tall, whereas Wolverine was supposed to be only five feet, four. But again, he looked like Wolverine so he worked.

The best casting in those first three X-Men movies was Rebecca Romijn. Like, wow. When Hollywood changes things from the established stories, be it a character, their looks, or a story line, it's usually for the worse. But not this time. Not with the character Mystique as portrayed by Rebecca Romijn. That was a magnificent portrayal of Mystique. Talk about perfection.

So I'm totally disappointed that they changed the actress for Mystique in the later X-Men movies. Jennifer Lawrence took over the role of Mystique, and she doesn't hold a candle to Rebecca Romijn. And to make it worse, Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique was given the lead role in X-Men Apocalypse. It didn't work. Mostly because she was miscast. As was almost every other character. Almost.

I did like Michael Fassbender as Magneto. But why won't they give him the white hair that Magneto is supposed to have? Why? I did like James McAvoy as the younger Professor X. I did like the new actress they got for Storm - Alexandra Shipp, and I liked the way they had her originate in Egypt as she was supposed to have originated. They got that one right.

But the character of Angel? They never get that one right. Angel was always my favorite character in the comics. He was an American, not a Russian, like this movie portrayed him. He was the son of wealthy parents, too. Not some backwater Russian cage fighter, and he loved having wings, as anyone would. In prior movies, and even the cartoon, he hated having wings. WTF? No, he LOVED being the Angel. He loved being able to fly. Who wouldn't?

I am glad they recast the roles of Jean Grey and Scott Summers, but they still didn't get them right. Yeah, Sophie Turner is famous now from her role in Game of Thrones, and yeah, she's way better than Famke Janssen, but, to me, she's not Jean Grey. They could have, should have found someone more suited to the role.

As for Cyclops? They blew that one totally. Again. The new actor is Tye Sheridan and he was a complete flop as Cyclops. Again, way too short, and again, way too soft. When the first X-Men movie came out with James Marsden in the role, I was thinking that they should have found an actor like Christopher Reeve to play the part. And now all these years later there IS an actor like Christopher Reeve. He's Brandon Routh, of course. He would have been PERFECT for the role of Scott Summers/Cyclops. Why can't they figure that out? I'm talking perfect here. He's tall, like Cyclops is supposed to be and has the perfect face.

As for the character Apocalypse? I did like the actor who played Apocalypse. He looked like him, and they made his costume perfect. Oscar Isaac was perfect as Apocalypse. And speaking of perfect portrayals, I can't forget to mention Psylocke. I must say, kudos to Bryan Singer for getting that one right. Olivia Munn was great as Psylocke, and wow to the costume department for getting her costume just as it is in the comics. It's the only one that is just like the comics. No other character in these X-Men movies has a costume that's like the comics. But for Psylocke they nailed it.

As for the story? It was too slow, too tangled, and too involved. They tried to make this movie a tear-jerker, and that's not why people go see X-Men movies. They want to see their favorite mutants portrayed the way they are used to seeing them in the comics. And the only one who came close to that was Psylocke. I mean when I saw Psylocke on the screen, it was truly like seeing the comic character come to life. That's what movie goers want to see. The new Storm was almost as good, and so was Apocalypse. But that's not a very good winning percentage.

Let's see what happens in the future. If they get Brandon Routh to replace Tye Sheridan as Cyclops, I would be a happier X-Men fan. With Brandon Routh as Cyclops, I might even accept Sophie Turner as Jean Grey. So let's get Brandon Routh as Cyclops. Bryan Singer are you listening?

Amber Heard Finally Lands a Role

I've written about Amber Heard several times in this blog, claiming that I thought she would make a great Samantha Jones in my novel, Killer of Killers if it were ever to be made into a movie. But I had also lamented the fact that Amber Heard didn't seem too popular in Hollywood, due to the fact that she rarely, if ever, landed any decent roles in any decent movies or TV shows.

Well, the news today is that Amber Heard has finally landed what might be a decent role. The role of Mera in the upcoming Justice League movie. I must admit that I've never heard of the character Mera. But that's where Google comes in handy. After Googling Mera, I learned that she's an inter-dimensional character in the Aquaman comic book. And she's Aquaman's wife.

I never knew this because, as a kid, I was mostly reading the Marvel comic books. Rarely did I read DC which is the universe in which Aquaman exists. You know, the universe where Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman exist. The Flash, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern round out the more popular DC superhero characters.

But Mera was, to me, at least, an unknown character. Not anymore. After a little more research I learned that the marriage between Aquaman and Mera is far from a happy one. There's no telling how the story line will play out in the movie. Hollywood has a way of changing comic book story lines. It really won't matter to me, though, because I never followed any of those characters.

To me, this news is only important because finally Amber Heard may have an opportunity for her long awaited breakout role. And it's not like comic book movies can't be a vehicle for a breakout role. Look what the character of Wolverine did for Hugh Jackman. That was the epitome of a breakout role.

Other good examples are Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill. Superman movies put both of them on the Hollywood map. Mera, unlike Superman, is a minor character so it might not be the same. But still. At least Amber can have something to brag about other than being married to Johnny Depp.

Next thing we need is for Corey Yuen to make another martial arts movie. And the one that would be great for him to make is Killer of Killers starring Dustin Clare as Trent Smith and Amber Heard as Samantha Jones. Can't wait.

Don't Have to be Asian to be Great M/A

I just read an article that said the traditionally white character called Iron Fist should have been cast as an Asian because martial arts is part of the Asian culture. This was shocking to me because the character in my Killer Books, Trent Smith, the world's greatest martial artist, is not Asian. He trained in Asia, was a martial arts champion in Asia, but he's a white man.

So the bottom line is I totally disagreed with that article. Basically it's saying movie makers should change the ethnicity of established characters for no other reason than political correctness. And that's Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit. Political correctness? I'm so sick of that. The writer didn't use the words 'political correctness', but that's really what the writer meant. Here's the link.

Changing ethnicities of traditionally white characters has happened, though. In the recent string of Marvel movies, Nick Fury changed from white to black. In the movie Daredevil, the Kingpin changed from white to black. In Thor, Heimdall changed from white to black, which was totally ridiculous. Heimdall is from Norse mythology. It's comparible to changing a black mythological character from black to white. It wouldn't happen. But for the Norse mythology, they did it. More ridiculous is that Heimdall is described as the whitest skinned of all the Norse gods. Here's the link.

My opinion is that if  you want a black or Asian character, (and I love black and Asian characters, btw,) you CREATE them. Bruce Lee played plenty of great Asian characters, created for him to play, and so what? They created them. Bruce Lee deserved to be in the movies, because he was a great, and perhaps the greatest martial artist. But they didn't take an established white character and turn him into an Asian for Bruce Lee to play the part. Not at all. They did the right thing. They created Asian characters for Bruce Lee to portray. Heck, it's a no brainer.

Comic books back in the day had the right idea. During the civil rights era, Marvel created the Black Panther, a great black character, which had nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement, btw. And then they created The Falcon, as we see in the Captain America movies now. And they created War Machine, and Luke Cage. They didn't turn white characters black. They created black characters.

So, yeah, you create black characters or Asian characters, or whatever. My thoughts are this: you don't have to be Asian to be a great martial artist. How many MMA champions have been Asian? Well? How many? Answer: not many. The majority of MMA champions have been white. I googled the top ten greatest MMA champions. Six of the ten are white. Another one is half white, (and half Asian,) two are black, and one is brown. Here's the link, but the list is as follows:

1 - Fedor Emelianenko - white
2 - Anderson Silva - black
3 - George St Pierre - white
4 - Chuck Liddell - white
5 - Randy Couture - white
6 - Matt Hughes - white
7 - Royce Gracie - white
8 - Jon Jones - black
9 - Jay Dee Penn - Half White, Half Asian
10 - Antonio Nogueira - brown

But really, I hate talking about race. My point is you don't have to be Asian to be a great martial artist, or a marital arts champion. Trent Smith in Killer of Killers and Killer Eyes is a white man. If those books were to be made into movies, and I sure hope they are one day, I would be very disappointed if they turned Trent into an Asian, just because he's a great martial artist.

That's all.

Deadpool - Vulgar

I'm not a prude. Really. My books have sex scenes in them. Not graphic sex scenes. I do leave something to the imagination. And there's some humor in my books, too. I just keep it low key.

But the new movie, Deadpool, being a comic book movie, was anything but low key when it came to sex and humor. Particularly sexual humor, which was actually quite vulgar, imo. I mean, it's a comic book movie. I can understand nude scenes, particularly when the scene is inside a strip club. But the vulgar sex jokes, well... I'm not in the mood for those. If you want vulgar sex jokes just watch South Park or Family Guy. There's your bathroom humor. I've no time for it in a show that's supposed to be an action adventure. It demeaned the show. It made the show into a big joke.

In my view, there's a difference between a serious drama and a not so serious comedy. One of the things that qualifies a show for a serious drama is when you have a lot of people getting killed. To me, that's a serious thing. In other words, when people are getting killed, it's not a laughing matter. Even if those people are bad guys. It's not a joke. Death, killing, murders, which involves people getting blown up, shot up, and chopped up, it's not a funny thing. And this is what was happening in the movie Deadpool. But even so, they tried to make it all a funny joke. A funny sex joke.

I've heard it's Deadpool's personality to make everything a joke. I don't know. I never bought or read a Deadpool comic book. The Deadpool character was invented after I stopped buying and reading comic books. So I admit to being unfamiliar with the character. But I love action adventure movies. I've appreciated the recent action adventure comic book movies too. They are done seriously. Dramatically. Not like the first attempts at bringing comic book heroes to the big screen. The first Batman and Superman movies were very tame in their depiction of violence. Hollywood preferred to make them comedic. Silly and goofy even.

Bottom line, those movies sucked. It was like Hollywood didn't take the comic book heroes seriously. They kept them silly and goofy. Then, more recently, when Hollywood decided to make the comic book movies more serious, and the characters more dramatic, with gritty story lines containing death and destruction, the movies started to get pretty darn good.

But now they're trying to combine the serious violence and death with vulgar bathroom humor. It just doesn't work. Not even when explained by a guy's personality. Death is not funny. Killing is not funny. Murder is not a joke. Even in my books where there's plenty of death and killing, I never mix it with jokes. Why? Because it's not a humorous thing to see people getting their heads chopped off and smashed to death like in Deadpool.

So while people are getting butchered in Deadpool, they continued with the jokes, which, btw, weren't even funny, unless you like trashy bathroom humor. I don't. And I wasn't laughing. In fact, no one in the theater was laughing. A couple times I heard a woman go "Eeww." That was the only response I heard from the audience in the entire theater, which was almost filled to capacity. (And just to clarify, the lady's "eeww" was a reaction to the sex jokes, not the violent death scenes.)

I will continue to write with this in mind: killing is not funny. It's not a joke. Killing and death is a serious thing. That doesn't mean there's no room for humor in an action adventure story line. Of course there is. But when you make killing the joke, then it's not funny. Not to me.

Arrow Show Reverts to Bad Writing

When it comes to the hero of a show being falsely accused for crimes he didn't commit, or for being hated by the community he's been saving for years, well, that concept is getting old. We saw it with Spider-man for ages. You had the newspaper man J. Jonah Jameson hating Spider-man for no reason, and his crusade to have Spider-man killed or arrested was never ending.

We saw it with Arrow in season one, when the police detective hated the Arrow for personal reasons, despite the Arrow saving his life, his daughter's life, and countless others. But then in season two, we saw the detective overcome that hate. Which was a good thing. He even sided with the Arrow and they were unofficial partners in the war against crime.

So what's the problem? In season three, the detective has regressed. In season three he's back to hating the Arrow and this time, he finally arrests him. And despite his own daughter being the Arrow's ally, and defending him, this detective dude can't let go of his hate, which, btw, is based on a ridiculous assumption that he, (the detective) was right about him all along. But wait. He wasn't right all along. He was wrong all along. He had come to realize that in season two. But in season three he comes to realize that he was right in season one, even though he was wrong. Sheesh...

So the detective, (now a captain) has regressed. And it's back to square one. All the growth of the detective character is flushed down the toilet. Come on. I was appreciating character growth. It's something that makes a story worth watching. But to erase all of that? It makes the story  boring. It's bad writing. Can't the writers think of something new? A new conflict? It's like the repeated, never ending, and ever old J. Jonah Jameson's obsession with hating Spider-man. The guy never grows, his character never develops and the repeated story line of his crusade against Spider-man is more than tired. It's rusty. It's boring.

I would think that after someone saves your life, not once, not twice, but multiple times, and saves the lives of your loved ones, and saves the lives of countless innocents, over and over again, you might find a reason to stop hating. But no. Not in these ridiculous story lines.

Sheesh...

Fear the Walking Dead

I like the AMC channel's Walking Dead series, so I gave the new series Fear the Walking Dead a chance last night. I didn't get past the first commercial. I may or may not get back to it and watch the entire series, but it reminds me of producers who want to capitalize on their popular show or heroes. Usually, it's a female version of whatever male hero that was a hit.

For example, The Six Million Dollar Man put out the Bionic Woman. The Man from Uncle put out The Girl from Uncle. Superman put out Supergirl, Bat Man put out Bat Girl, and Spider-man put out Spider-woman. I'm sure that list goes on and on.

Then there's the spin offs, which are innumerable. All in the Family spun off The Jeffersons, Happy Days spun off Laverne and Shirley, Mary Tyler Moore spun off Rhoda, etc.

But there is another version of this. It's when the producers of whatever popular series just go overboard with it. It happened in comics when you had the original Amazing Spider-man, then they put out the Spectacular Spider-man, Marvel Team-ups featuring Spider-man, and several more.

When the X-Men took over as the most popular comic book, the original series Uncanny X-Men put out just plain X-Men, then X-Factor, X-Force, Excalibur, The New Mutants, X-Man, and so many more I can't keep up with them.

I used to love Spider-man and the X-Men, now I can't stand any comics at all. I just got sick of them and I stopped collecting. The only reason for these producers going overboard is money. There's a point where the amount of a particular product is just right, and then there's the overboard point. Some call it the bottom line. Make as much money as possible. In my opinion, when it reaches that point, it's no longer art. It's nothing more than greed. And when it reaches that point, I lose interest. I wonder if anyone else is like me in that regard.

WWII Movie--Fury

I saw a trailer for this new WWII movie called Fury, and it looked good. I've always liked WWII movies. Battle of the Bulge and The Longest Day are classics, and then there are my personal favorites, starting with To Hell and Back, which is the true story of Audie Murphy, starrring the real Audie Murphy. Next, I have a sentimental favorite called Attack! starring Jack Palance, and then there's my all time favorite WWII movie, which is Cross of Iron, starring James Coburn, Maximilliam Schell, David Warner, and James Mason. (All of whom have a place on my favorite actors list.)

In case you're wondering, Saving Private Ryan didn't make my favorites list. Yeah, it was a good movie, but I had too many problems with that one.

When I first heard of Fury, I thought it was about Nick Fury, and his WWII experiences. Nick Fury was the sergeant leading the "Howling Commandos" and it was a Marvel Comic Book called Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. And with the slew of Marvel Comics heroes being made into movies over the past ten years or so, I was sure I was right.

But it's not Sgt. Fury from the Marvel universe. Not even close. It stars Brad Pitt as a WWII tank commander, and from what I've heard, they go behind enemy lines on some mission. I plan on seeing the movie, maybe this weekend, but from that basic information about the plot, it reminds me of the plot from Cross of Iron. Cross of Iron was told from the German perspective about a squad of German soldiers led by James Coburn who are also sent behind enemy lines. But that story is on the Eastern Front, and the Germans are fighting the Russians. But it really was a great movie. Director Sam Peckinpah was at his best.

As for Fury, well, we'll see how that one compares. Will let you know.

Finally a Good Comic Book Movie

I used to collect comics. When I was 12. But I still have pretty much every comic I bought in those days. My favorite comic was The X-Men. And that was my favorite comic before it became the number one comic of all comics.

Sure, I liked Spider-man, the FF, and many more. You can say I was a Marvel Comics fan, not DC. I never really got into Superman, Bat Man or the DC universe. It was Marvel all the way. And the X-Men was my favorite.

So you can imagine I was glad to see it made into a movie. And the first movie was okay. But that's all it was. Just okay. Mostly they got the casting wrong. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine was a great choice, but that's just about the only one who was a great choice. Patrick Stewart as Professor X was just okay, and the rest, totally wrong. I don't need to get into the why and what-could-have-been, because even though the second X-Men movie was a better movie than the first one, the third X-Men movie totally sucked. In every aspect, too, not just casting.

Again, I won't get into the why and what-could-have- been. I will say the fourth X-Men movie--X-Men First Class--was the worst of all. I mean it was as if the people who made that movie never read any of the comics, and knew absolutely nothing about the X-Men. It was a franchise that at this point was getting worse with every successive movie.

Yeah, the two Wolverine solo movies were good. Or at least good enough, imo. But the third and fourth X-Men movies were so bad, it would have been better if they never got made. That's how bad they were.

Which brings me to the fifth one. The one that just came out. X-Men-Days of Future Past. It was good. Surprisingly good. They used a story from the comics, (albeit liberally changed) but the story still worked. And the casting for a lot of the new characters they introduced was passable. Bishop's role in that story was minimal. He had a greater role in the comics. But understandably, they focused on Wolverine, since Hugh Jackman's enormous success in the role has made the character so popular.

But a pet peeve of mine is the usual bad writing. Mostly that happened in those two latter films, but in the latest one, the writing was a strong point. FINALLY. A very strong screenplay and it was pure joy watching it for the first time. I'm sure I'll see it again, and why not? The X-Men had always been my favorite superhero type comic book, and to see it well made was reassuring.

Can't wait to see how they top that. But now, I'm not so pessimistic. I think they will.

Action Movies--Where Are They?

I love action stories, and particularly action movies. It seems that in today's movie environment, it's the superhero movies that are dominating the action movie genre. Which is kind of strange because superheroes were not stories from books. They were almost exclusively COMIC books. Hey, I've nothing against comic books, let's be clear about that. I collected a good number of them when I was a kid, and even added to the collection in high school and college.

But movies used to be based on stories from books. There's even a category for an academy award for it. You know, the Best Adapted to Screenplay Award. (Yeah, there's the Best Original Screenplay Award, too.) But there's no award for Best Adapted to Screenplay from Comic Books Award. And that's because they never used to do that.

Of course, the first Superman movies did that. And there were a sprinkling of other attempts at it. Most were not good. The Phantom was a failure, and I absolutely hated Tim Burton's Bat Man movies.

But lately the superhero movie genre has taken off like a rocket! And they have been surprisingly good. That's because the technology for special effects have made the superhero movies possible. And how! From Marvel Comics, Iron Man, Spider-man, Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, The X-Men, and The Fantastic Four have been superb. From DC Comics, the new Superman and Bat Man movies have also been high quality movies. Tremendous special effects, good stories, good acting, and overall magnificent productions, have paid off big time for the people who've made them.

So what about the non-superhero action stories/movies? Well, there certainly are a number of them in the book medium. But there haven't been many movies in the action thriller genre lately that have made an impact. The Bourne movies were terrific. The Transporter movies were terrific, too, but have there been any other action movies that have made a splash? Well, I can't think of any.

Which brings me to the martial arts action movie/story genre. They always are exciting to watch. There seems to be a steady stream of them from China and Japan. And regular releases from America, too. Even Quentin Tarrantino has had a hand in them. The Kill Bill and Man with the Iron Fist movies were martial arts action movies. And even though Kill Bill was over the top, (a Tarrantino trait) I liked them both. And all were, and have been, successful.

And that is good for me, because my novel, Killer of Killers would fit right in with those movies. It is smack dab in the middle of that genre. It reads easy and fast, it's exciting and includes romance, beautiful women, and a brooding lone hero, who only has justice on his mind. Sure some things distract him. But not for long. Bottom line, Killer of Killers is an action packed martial arts thriller that includes more twists and turns than any of the aforementioned stories.

Check out Killer of Killers today. You'll see.

Captain America Movie

Movie Version of Captain America

Just saw the Captain America movie last night with my two sons, and one of their friends, and I liked it. I thought it was good. A lot of action, intrigue, and everything. Even a touch of romance. Actually less than a touch, maybe a hint would be more accurate.

But my older son didn't like it. He thought it was too cliché, and too formulaic. Wow. But as I thought about it, he was right. I still liked the movie, but he was right. You could predict who the bad guy was, even though it was supposed to be a shocker near the end.

And ditto for the twists in the plot. They were all predictable. But I still liked it. Maybe I was just falling back on my Jack Kirby days. Jack Kirby and Joe Simon, are the real creators of Captain America, not Stan Lee. Back in the day, Jack Kirby was king. And I still remember all of those great characters he created and illustrated while working for Marvel.

And even though I've complained that most of Marvel's characters have been allowed to be changed, (many significantly, and most not to their betterment,) the movie version of Captain America, at least, is still pretty much true to his comic book roots.



Captain America drawn by Jack Kirby


Would I have preferred a different actor? Yes, but the actor was acceptable. At least he was the right size for Captain America. And he had blond hair. These were musts for the part, and Chris Evans had that. I would have chosen someone with the face like Jack Kirby had drawn it, but maybe I'm being too picky. What face might that be? Well, a face like Robert Redford's would have been good. (In his prime that is. Ironically, he had a part in this latest movie.)

But the story was just another Hollywood formula story. I would like to see a movie that is true to a comic book story. Sadly, it will never happen.  Bottom line, was it a good movie? Despite my son's opinion, my answer is yes.

Books to Movies-How Much is Changed?

I'm all for books being made into movies, especially if the story is one that would benefit from the latest modern technologies for special effects. Some movies didn't need spectacular special effects. Like the James Bond movies. Some movies really couldn't be done without them, like the more recent slew of comic book/superhero movies.

The Lord of the Rings books were also stories that needed modern CGI, and boy, did Peter Jackson deliver some winners, and he's still at it.

But the knock on books to movies was that usually the movies did not do justice to the books. Or the movies made too many changes to the story as told in the books, and those changes were not for the better. Sometimes, the movie was right on, and sometimes the movie was better.

Examples of movies being better than the books include Goldfinger and From Russia With Love. But the other Bond movies? I'd say no.

There are many examples of movies that were nowhere near as good as the books. Some people may argue that the vast majority of movies fit into that category. When the first Conan movie came out, I was really disappointed. That was not Conan on the screen. I still remember when I first saw that movie, I stood up at its conclusion and declared, "That wasn't Conan!"

People who were fans of the Batman character from DC comics knew how I felt. The early Batman shows and movies were not true to the Batman legend, I heard them say. The TV show with Adam West as Batman was a silly and goofy spoof. Even the Tim Burton movies were far from what the "real" Batman was supposed to have been.

As for me, I was never a Batman "fan" but I could understand where they were coming from. Especially when I saw how badly Conan was depicted on film. The later Batman movies, made by Christopher Nolan, I've been told, hit the mark, however. Those were considered acceptable by the Batman fans, even the hardcore Batman fans.

Marvel Comics has a lot of great characters that benefit from the CGI effects of modern movie making. But Stan Lee, the man from Marvel who invented most of those characters, apparently doesn't demand that his characters are depicted on film the way he had written them. Is that a sell out? Many people would say so. It seems the fans are more concerned about the accurate depiction of his characters than he is.

One man I have come to respect is Frank Miller, the comics writer/artist who wrote and illustrated the graphic novels Sin City. I heard that when movie maker Robert Rodriguez approached him to make his books into a movie, Miller automatically assumed Rodriguez would change his stories, and he said no.

Can you believe that? An author saying no to Hollywood? Now that's integrity. It was only when Rodriguez promised that the movie would be 100% true to the book, did Miller consider it, and when Rodriguez offered Miller a co-directing role in the movie to ensure he would be satisfied, Miller finally agreed. And it was a great movie.

I would hope I could have as much integrity. But I don't think so. I have not achieved anything close to what Miller has achieved. He was able to say no. I don't think I could. But right now I can only wish I could be in that position. It would be a dream come true.

Killer of Killers is no cartoon

I used to like comics, and even cartoons. But that was some time ago. Comics and cartoons used to be just for kids, but for a while now both comics and cartoons have been targeting an adult audience. I think it might have something to do with those kids who used to like them have grown up, and being savvy in marketing, the people who make comics and cartoons decided to keep targeting those customers.

And as a result, a lot of new comics companies have cropped up. And certainly many of them target an adult audience. I suppose they call them Graphic Novels now. Frank Miller's Sin City is a prime example. But even though it is for adults, it retains that "cartoon-like" quality. As do most of the others, even in their motion picture formats. Despite being live action, they still have the flavor of a cartoon. The Spirit is another one. Make no mistake, I love both of those movies, although I admit I never read the graphic novels.

But Killer of Killers is no cartoon. Nor is it a comic book. It just doesn't have that kind of flavor to it. It's for adults, just like Sin City and The Spirit, but it has none of that style. I couldn't see it as a graphic novel. It doesn't have any of that "camp" that exudes from both of those stories. Again, I loved both of them, but KOK is nothing like them.

And that's because KOK is 100% serious. Sure there's a comedic scene or two in there. Maybe a few funny lines, but it doesn't take away from the heavy story line. It's dark, to be sure. And it's a brooding Trent Smith who dominates the overall story line. There are many characters in it, and readers may identify with any one of them. But there's no "camp" and no "tongue-in-cheek" and no lightheartedness whatsoever. No cartoon. No comic. No graphic novel

The only exception might be Japanese anime. If you've ever seen those, then you know what I mean. And that's the only exception.

OK, I Liked The Avengers Movie

I forgot to mention that I did see the Avengers movie last Saturday, and I will admit that I did like it. That is to say that I did enjoy it. It was a fun movie. I know I was thinking it would suck, as the movie people usually drop the ball when it comes to making movies about comic book superheroes.

But not this time. The Avengers can rank up there with Christopher Nolan's Batman Franchise as a very well-made superhero movie. It does capture the essence of the Avengers, and unlike the X-men movies, it remained true to the characters and basic storyline.

Would I have changed anything? Well, yeah. Nick Fury, for instance, was not a black man. If they wanted a black hero in there, which obviously they did, and I have no objection to that, btw, they should have just created another character who was black, that's all. Not take an already established white character and change his race. That reeked of "tokenism."

But it didn't ruin the movie. Not for me. It was still real good. And Samuel Jackson did portray the part well. I've always liked him as an actor, so, whatever.

And there was one more thing I would have changed. Ever since the Hulk TV show, the hulk has never been allowed to speak any lines. In the comics, he actually talked, and had a personality. The TV show only had him growl and roar. Same thing with the two Hulk movies. He only growls and roars, like nothing more than a wild animal. But he wasn't an animal. He really had a charming personality, and the movies (and TV show)  have robbed him of that. It's such a shame they have reduced the great Hulk character to little more than a mindless rampaging monster. (Qualifier: In The Avengers, the Hulk did speak one line. It consisted of two words. So my point is valid, thank you.)

But anyway, it was a good movie.  Worth seeing. Maybe worth seeing twice.

Maybe Avengers Doesn't Suck

I posted last week that I believed the new Avengers movie would suck because I read that Loki, the half-brother of Thor, was using Aliens from outer space as allies to invade earth. I thought here we go again. Hollywood putting their own spin on a classic Marvel comics story.

I said that Loki should have myriads of "demons" and such from the Asgaardian dimension of the Norse gods from where he hails. And that recruiting aliens was a Hollywood take on how things should be in the movies.

Well, my brother saw the movie this past weekend, and in a telephone call explained to me that the "aliens" were indeed from the Asgaardian dimension of the Norse gods. Well, then. OK. Since it's what I said should be the case, perhaps the movie is what it's supposed to be.

And going by their box office take, it certainly seems as though the movie doesn't suck at all. At least not according to the paying public. It's Hollywood's bottom line, and it's a raging success as far as that is concerned.

But that's not how I judge movies. I liked John Carter of Mars, and that movie lost so much money the Disney executive in charge of it had to resign. At least that's what I read somewhere. There are many examples of movies or TV shows that lost money or had bad ratings but I thought they were well done, and some are even sentimental favorites.

Let's hope that the new Spider-Man movie will be closer to the original comics stories. One thing I hope they make true to the original is the spider web shooting ability of Spider-Man. In the comics, Peter Parker invented mechanical web-shooters. In the movies, they made it a natural thing that developed in his wrists. That just sounds gross to me and a lot of other people, too.

One thing I think is better right off. And that would be the actor who plays Peter Parker. I never thought Toby McGuire was the right actor for the part. The new guy, whose name I don't remember right now seems much better from what I've seen in promo photos. I like the costume better, too. So, we'll see this summer. Looking forward to it. Avengers, too.

Avengers Movie Will Suck

I'm one of those guys who read comics when I was a kid, and I remember the Avengers very well. I still have a stack of them in my closet. I have the entire X-Men collection even. Numbers one through three hundred something. No, I haven't bought a comic in the last fifteen years, but I still have a pretty good comics collection and I plan on giving them to my sons as a kind of heirloom.

So I have a very good idea of what these comic super-heroes were about. And mostly the movies do not do them justice. Not even close.

It's funny, really, because for so many years I was waiting for them to be made into movies. My friends and I understood that the special effects technology was insufficient to do super-hero movies well, so we were patient. And now that the technology has caught up, the movies are coming out.

And they are mostly done either plain wrong or with too many flaws.

Take Daredevil. It was one of the few that was done mostly right, but what was with that stupid mask? In the comics, it's attached to his costume, but in the movie it's more like a hat that covers his eyes. It was stupid for at least three reasons. First, as a hat, it can come off easily. Two, it doesn't conceal his face very well. And three, it just looked dumb.

Oh, but I've talked about this before. The movie people have an instinctive belief that they are superior to the comics people. And that includes the writers, producers and the costume designers, too. They just can't leave it the way it was in the comics. They believe anything they do will be better. But they are wrong.

Even the Batman movie makers changed Batman's costume. It's wasn't an all black costume. It wasn't bullet proof either. It seems only Superman's costume was left alone.

Take the X-Men. They were given all black leather costumes. Wrong. If I were to itemize everything they did wrong with the X-Men movies, this post will be too long. Suffice it to say that even though the first two X-Men movies were close, the third one completely sucked. And that last one? The X-Men origins movie? That was a disaster!

Which brings me to the soon to be released Avengers movie. Never mind that the roles are miscast. (With the exception of Robert Downey as Tony Stark.) But the trailers have made it clear that the main villain, Loki, the Norse god who's a bad guy, enlists the aid of aliens to attack earth. It's like, huh? Loki has a bevy of Norse mythological bad guys with whom he had sided over the years. Since when does he have to go SciFi for his villainous deeds? Since never.

Well, this post can go on and on. I will take my sons to see the movie. But I already know it will suck. Just like the movies HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR, FF, X-Men, and yes, even SPIDER-MAN sucked.

Only IRON MAN and Nolan's BATMAN movies are on the mark. (The all black costume can be overlooked in Nolan's Batman.) And it's really too bad. If only...

Movie Versions

I have made it known that movie versions of books, even comic books are usually nothing more than a bad joke. Of course there are exceptions. But usually movies do no justice to their source, if that source is a book or comic book.

And comic books get the worst of it. Lately, I've taken my sons to see the new X-Men, Thor, and Captain America movies. The kids like them, because they never read the comic books. (They haven't taken to reading yet. But I'm sure they will as they get older.)

But for someone like me, who has read them all, I just can't give these movies my stamp of approval. Almost always they are cast wrong. Almost always, the movie writers change the concept or storyline of the origins.

I mean, as an example, the X-Men movie. It was supposed to be about, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Iceman and Angel. But only Beast was there. And come on... the Beast didn't have an opposing thumb for his big toe.

OK, there was an Angel in it, but Angel was a guy in the comics, with the wings of an... ANGEL... not a girl who was a stripper with bug wings. They should have called her Bug Girl, not Angel.

Oh well.

Frank Miller

Getting your book made into a movie has got to be a great event for an author. Or is it? Well if you care about money, it is. But is money all you care about? (I see you nodding over there!) But seriously, there are some writers who actually care more about their stories than money.

And Frank Miller is one of them. His success began as a comic book artist, and he was a very good one. Then he went on to write comic book stories, too. His first break into Hollywood (I think) came with the screenplay he wrote for Robocop III. I don’t think that endeavor made him into a hot commodity for the big screen, because I know he went back to comics. That was his bread and butter.

And like a lot of comic book talent, he branched off into his own comic line. Big names in comics did that, like Jim Lee, (Wildcats,) and Todd McFarlane, (Spawn) to name a couple.

But Frank Miller was tops in the genre. And he had a lot of fans, one of them a Hollywood director, Robert Rodriguez, who approached Miller with an offer to make his graphic novel, Sin City, into a movie.

Now Frank Miller knows that movie people have an arrogant attitude. They believe that they are superior to comic book writers, and they think that they have to change the stories and the characters to be worthy of the big screen. And almost invariably, the stories and the characters suffer as a result.

So Frank Miller said no. He didn’t care how much money Hollywood threw at him. Money was NOT his objective. His story was ultimate in his mind. Now how about that for a writer with integrity!

But Rodriguez told Miller that not only would he not change Miller’s story, but that he would let Miller co-direct the movie so that he would know first hand that his story was not going to be stained. Only then did Miller agree. Now there’s a writer’s writer. I never did read the graphic novel. (I haven’t read a comic since my first son was born fourteen years ago.) But I saw the movie, and it sure was great.

Frank Miller. Kudos to you.

Opportunities

So I really didn't do the promoting I wanted to do for THE VASE at the WonderCon last Saturday, which is really a shame, because that's mainly what the WonderCon was for. Everyone was promoting everything. Comics, Graphic Novels, Books, Movies, TV Shows, and there I was NOT promoting THE VASE beyond a short talk with a movie promoter. If only I had some kind of flyer or even a business card available to hand out, I might have called the trip a successful promotional effort. As it was it was only a successful outing for a father and his two sons. Which is OK, really, but you have got to take advantage of your opportunities.

But there was something I was glad I didn't have to do. Promote my book to publishers. That's a relief. Because there was this guy at the WonderCon walking around with a sign hanging over his chest that read: Publish My Book! and below that he had the title, and then some writing which I couldn' read. Maybe a teaser or a logline.

I thought to myself, "That's not how it's done, Dude!" You have to have a polished manuscript, which I'll assume he has, but then you've got to have the query process down, which anyone who is reading this blog surely knows about. You have to write a query letter to an agent or an editor of a publishing house that doesn't require an agent. And it's got to be a polished query letter, too. You've got to have a well-written synopsis ready, and an "elevator pitch" to boot. You don't walk around a Comic Convention with a sign over your chest saying, Publish My Book. It was so lame. But then again, maybe he did go the query letter route. Maybe he did try everything the "right" way. And maybe this is what it's come to for him.

But to walk around with a sign on your chest? Maybe this guy should look into self publishing. It's not something I would ever do, but for someone like that it could be an option. OR you just keep trying. You write another book,maybe. You keep trying. You don't just throw your hands up and carry a sign that says, Publish My Book. I would bet that will never work. I just can't believe it would.

So here's what worked for me. First you have got to have a good story and you have to write it well. I did in KILLER OF KILLERS. You query agents, and don't stop revising your MS the entire time. You gotta keep going over that book and over it making it better every time. Then when agents start to bite, you know you've got something. OK, so an agent signed me for KOK, but never sold the book, but you don't stop there. You write another book. I wrote THE VASE. My agent didn't even want to represent it, which made me feel horrible, to tell you the truth. It was like if my own agent doesn't want to represent THE VASE then WTF, you know? So I queried publishers myself. And the whole time, I revised it, over and over, like KOK, and then publishers started nibbling. Partials were requested. Fulls were requested. A publisher offered a contract. Another publisher offered a better contract, and BINGO, THE VASE SOLD!

But the lesson is you don't give up. You keep on working on it. Over and over, you keep working on it. You write another book, and you keep working on it. Someone posted somewhere about a writing teacher who said most people won't get published because they don't work hard enough to get published. Well, that may be true. And if it is, then I can pat myself on the back, knowing that I did indeed work hard enough. But the work doesn't stop there. Once THE VASE is published, I'll have to work hard in promoting it, too. And that's where I began this post, isn't it. So I better be ready for that. More so than I was last Saturday. Because I don't want to be like that guy walking around with a sign that says, BUY my book. That would be just as lame.