Am I Excited for Ready Player One?

Ready Player One is a film that I have continuously flipflopped on since the first trailer was shown at San Diego Comic Con last year. On one hand, it's an incredibly interesting premise directed by probably the only person who could pull it off. On the other hand, I fear that, much like the book, it may squander it's premise in favor of going for more skin-deep "Hey, I remember that piece of pop culture." moments. So, in other words, it's hard to tell if I'm excited for the film or not, but that may be because of how inconsistent I find the film's marketing. 

For starters, what in the actual fuck are those posters about? Don't get me wrong, I like some of them, particularly the Blade Runner and Bullit ones, but others? Well...

OOF. This legit looks like someone's early 2000s message board chat signature. It also points me towards the fear that the film is just going to be a "Hey, I remember that thing I liked." slideshow that fails to capture why those things are so beloved in the first place. 

For instance, take the film's insistence on parading around the Iron Giant through it's promotion as a massive mecha used for combat. I love the Iron Giant, to the point that it may be my favorite animated film of all time, to the point that I vividly remember the film's message. 

Much like the bullets in the Matrix, I suspect the point may have gone over the filmmakers's head. 

By using the Iron Giant as a weapon throughout the film, I can't help but feel that you're not only misunderstanding why people love the source material, but somewhat tarnishing it as well. To a generation of people who watch the film, the giant hulking mecha that almost certainly uses it's laser cannon to wreak havoc will be their perception of a largely benevolent being who ultimately choose sacrifice over allowing other beings to die. For all the book's flaws, it recognized that the Giant wasn't meant for that and has the main character choose a different giant robot for combat, and the film choosing to ignore that reminds somewhat of Zack Snyder's "Have Batman murder people because it looks cool" way of thinking.

And while the book's more childish flaws are certainly an issue, part of my excitement comes from the hope that maybe, just maybe, Spielberg's better than that. After all, the primary criticism is that the book relies entirely on too much "tell, don't show", which will probably translate better to a visual medium than most expect. Ultimately, this film is the definition of a mixed bag for me, which is a shame because it really shouldn't be. But hey, being angry at things I should love is pretty much nerd culture for you. 

Spoiler Review: "Mister Miracle #7" Is An Unexpected Return

So, I love Tom King and Mitch Gerad's run on Mister Miracle a lot. It was my favorite comic of last year, and I even did a civilian cosplay of Gerad's take on Scott Free at Rhode Island Comic Con. So, when it was announced the series was going on a two-month haitus, I kind of wanted to die, especially after the incredible cliffhanger of #6. So, now that it's back, what did I think of #7? 

Well, I liked it, but I'm a bit let down at the direction it chose to take. Rather than build on the reveal that Darkseid is back and Scott is the new Highfather, the series instead cuts to a few months later, with Scott and Barda on the way to the hospital. Barda is in labor, complete with all the usual drama of contractions, trying to name the child, and awkward appearances by family. (In this case, the family drama comes in the form of the Female Furies, who have called a brief truce.) 

It's a surprisingly intimate issue, focusing on the relationship between Scott and Barda and choosing to go for character beats rather than big action moments like I had suspected would happen. (A particular favorite is the Furies supplying Scott with a knife that can cut through Barda's skin in case they need an emergency c-section, with them making it abundantly clear they intend to kill Scott with it once the truce is over.) What helps is the fact that both King and Gerads are fathers, with Gerards's son only a couple months old at this point, making all the little moments feel rather personal as well. 

Outside of the more combat-focused issues, this is probably the most I've enjoyed Gerads's art on the series as well. The series does such an excellent job of mixing the fantastic with the mundane, with the fact that the Furies never leave the waiting room a particularly surreal touch. 

But despite all this, I can't help but feel a bit letdown by the lack of follow-up from last issue. Sure, there's a few moments where it's clear Scott's ignoring his role in favor of witnessing the birth of his child, but the fact that Scott was borderline broken by Darkseid's reappearance never really comes up in any fashion. I'm certain that it'll come up next issue, but it feels like a missed opportunity. 

Regardless, this was still a very good issue of a very good comic, and everyone should be checking this book out, especially given that the ending of this one is beginning to suggest some definitive answers to the larger questions that the books early issues posed. (I'd talk about them, but I'm still holding out for fear of looking foolish.)

Read The Room, Democrats

Why Democrats Should Go Left, but Not Ditch The Centrists

So, this is going to be a rare political post on this blog. Honestly, this might be the only political post, but I feel like it's something I've wanted to say, but haven't really had the place to say it in a fully fleshed out manner. It surrounds the ongoing (if slowly shrinking) divide within the Democratic Party. On one side, you have the more centrist wing of the party, with the progressive wing that were re-energized by the campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2016. The argument for centrism and moderation is that they can gain more in the center than they would if they took stronger left stances, while progressives argue that Democrats are alienating a solid mass of the voter base by trying to appeal to moderates. After the widespread Democratic defeat that was 2016, it became increasingly clear that Democrats needed to adapt to the times or risk losing again down the road. 

And I, for one, believe that this is the case. Democrats should move forward and be bolder, standing for gun control, single-payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, and every other widely popular idea they've rejected for fear of losing on a national level. But a national level isn't the only level the party is competing on, is it? Democrats can always rely on places like New York, California, and most of the northern states as safe states, but they're also competing in the Midwest and the South, famously conservative regions where Democrats have been getting slaughtered in congressional and local elections for decades. So, what's the solution? Go all the way left and amputate the red states, or stay to the center and hope for the best? My answer is, well, a little bit of both. 

Democrats should absolutely go harder left, especially on things that are pretty much the norm worldwide, but they should still run ideal candidates for every state. From a purely tactical standpoint, running moderates in the South and progressives in the North and West enables the party to cover the most ground with the voter base, so it makes perfect sense. But, somehow, saying that the party should aim for a little bit of both rather than one or the other is a really unpopular opinion. 

Look at the upcoming primary elections in California and the special Senate election in Alabama last year as good examples of optimizing candidates. In California, the Democrats are in the middle of a brutal primary fight between Dianne Feinstein, the 84-year old moderate incumbent who supported mass surveillance (going as far as to deem Edward Snowden a traitor), the Iraq War, and deemed marijuana "a gateway drug", and Kevin De Leon, a 51-year old progressive challenger. Now, California is the most liberal state in the country, so whoever won the Democratic party endorsement for the runoff would almost certainly win the runoff election, meaning it should've been easy for the moderates to let the progressives have this one. But guess what: they didn't. 

De Leon faced an incredible amount of criticism for challenging Feinstein, and ultimately neither candidate was able to win the Democratic Party endorsement for the run-off, meaning both have a fairly even chance of winning (or losing). It was totally boneheaded for Democrats to not give De Leon the shot, especially given how he much better echoes what California stands for than his opponent. Of course, this is a double-bladed sword, so don't worry centrist readers, I'll be throwing shades at progressives now. 

In Alabama, moderate Democrat Doug Jones shocked the country by defeating far-right Republican (and alleged child molester) Roy Moore. The campaign was a tight race, and ultimately came down to moderate Republican voters (on top of incredibly high black voter turnout) choosing to hold their noses and not vote for a guy that might be a pedophile. So what did a (admittedly small) number of progressive Dems do? Simple, they got angry Jones wasn't more progressive, with some DSA members going as far as to sit out the election, risking a Moore win. This is despite the fact that moderate conservatives being willing to vote for him is a major reason for his victory.That kind of "make perfect the enemy of good" thinking is just as dangerous as moderate unwillingness to change with the times. 

Ultimately, Democrats shouldn't play a general rulebook, they should be adaptable. Go progressive nationally, and pick and choose locally, and I have a feeling we could be seeing a lot more Dem wins in the future. 

Erik Killmonger, Kylo Ren, and the Rise of the Sympathetic Villain

So, I saw Black Panther against last weekend and I (unsurprisingly) continued to love it. This time around, I was able to better appreciate Micheal B. Jordan as big bad Erik Killmonger, who is easily the strongest character in the film. It's an incredible performance that stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast, with Jordan making Killmonger both terrifying and utterly tragic. 

It reminded me a lot of Adam Driver's Kylo Ren, a conflicted warrior of the dark side who feels as though he could fall into redemption any minute, and got me thinking about the current state of villains in blockbuster films. Think about the most popular villains of the last few years. Loki. Baron Zemo from Civil War. Kylo Ren. Killmonger. The Vulture from Spider-Man: Homecoming. What do they all have in common, besides the fact that they're all owned by Disney? They're all, to a degree, characters with clear motives and understandable worldviews. 

Think about it. Loki is the angry adopted child of the Norse gods, Zemo wanted vengeance for the death of his children, Kylo is driven by a mixture of neglect, uncertainty, and betrayal, the Vulture wanted to provide for his family in the face of bigshot superheroes who don't care about the little people ruining everything, and Killmonger (rightfully) wants Wakanda to fight for the oppressed, no matter who gets hurt in the crossfire. Now, tell me what these guy want (if you can remember them)?

Something about a red beam and destroying the worlds, I think? 

How about this guy? 

Bugs were involved, I can tell you that. 

Or this guy? 

He looks pretty stylish, I'll give him that.

The point is that no one particularly cares about these generic, gray moustache-twirling bad guys with unclear motives and personalities. These characters have dominated the blockbuster scene to the point where villains like Killmonger and Vulture are seen as incredible breaths of fresh air, making it so satisfying to see that audiences have finally started to reject them in favor of better characters. Admit it: you were satisfied to see Kylo cut Snoke in half and step up as leader of the First Order. I know I was, because blockbusters are really only as good as the conflict that drives them. And you know who drives conflicts?

That's right, the villains. So when a villain is a generic gray dude with armor or scars who wants to shoot a big beam into the sky so his generic CGI horde can prevail in taking over the planet/universe/whatever, it's remarkably hard to care what's happening. But when the villain is a fleshed-out and interesting antagonist, playing off the hero and making the audience regard the grain of truth in their reasoning, the film becomes not just entertaining, but thematically satisfying. 

So please, studios, save some money on CGI and just encourage better villains with great performances behind them. I guarantee that you'll win audiences over more with a Killmonger or Loki than you will with whoever this chick was. 

The Cautious Optimism Behind "Solo"

I've got weird expectations heading into Solo. When it was first announced, I was largely indifferent, figuring, "Hey, it could be fun, but there's a lot of other stories I'd like to see." Then they announced that Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the geniuses behind 21 Jump Street and The Lego Movie, would be writing and directing, which certainly made me take attention. After all, everything these guys touched turned out to be great, so maybe this will be something after all. And then, just to make sure I was absolutely on-board, they cast Donald Glover as Lando. 

Donald Glover. As in Troy from Community. As in Childish Gambino. As in the showrunner and lead of Atlanta, my favorite show of 2016. How could they possibly mess up after such a perfect move? 

Ah. That's right, you can fire the directors for making the movie "too comedic". This was pretty much when everyone soured on Solo, with some pointing out the similarities between this and Marvel's feud with Edgar Wright over Ant-Man that led to his departure from the project. Ron Howard stepped in to reshoot the film, which suggested a wild change in the film's tone, with Disney and Lucasfilm reassuring us that everything was fine. No problems here, no sir. 

*Ron Howard voice* There were problems. 

When this bit of news broke, I was pretty much done with the film, to the point where I suspected that I might not even see it in theaters. At best, I thought it would turn out to be a bit of "Hey, remember this Star Wars thing you love? Isn't nostalgia fun?" like Rogue One turned out to be. Just a bit of fun, entirely disposable fluff, much like Ant-Man. At worst, I expected an uneven mess that wouldn't even make it's release date and forever sully the good name of Donald Glover. 

But then they announced that a trailer for a trailer (which is a trend I hate with every fiber of my soul) would be showing during the Super Bowl. So, I watched the Super Bowl with interest. Granted, I only ever really watch the Super Bowl for the commercials in the first place, but now I was on the look-out for something. The teaser played...and it looked okay, but wasn't quite enough to sell me. So I got excited for the trailer the next day. 

I watched the trailer and, surprisingly, I really enjoyed it. It looked like a silly little romp with a surprising color palette, so maybe Disney's fears were unfounded. In the space of two days, I had very much changed my tune on Solo. After all, it's a good cast with an good director, why should I be so hesitant?

But that's the problem. Try as I might, I can't quite seem to muster excitement beyond hoping that it will be good. Because despite the really good trailer, I can't escape the fact this is a film that forced two brilliant directors off in favor of more studio control, a film that was reshot almost entirely in the space of a few months, and a film that's own distributor is worried about. As a fan of The Last Jedi, I'm worried it will be a step backwards into "hey, remember this?" after Rian Johnson worked to free the series from the shackles of the past. Most of all, I'm worried that turn the audience off of the franchise and lead to Lucasfilm being hesitant to make more films like it. 

But, hey, maybe I'm wrong and I'll really like it. Maybe it will be a smash-hit success, which I want it to be because a) rooting for something to fail is dumb and b) maybe the success will convince Lucasfilm to wise up and give the people what they want. That's right: Lando: A Star Wars Story, written and directed by Donald Glover. 

Just two hours of this please.